Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Recent Travels - London was fun

Just a short note to say hello to everyone and to thank you for all the comments on my new burqa and my new years eve fun.

We've been traveling again. Ireland, london, then back to texas. It has been an interesting experience because Sir required me to wear the new blue burqa with its two goggle eyes. It seems to be much more disturbing to people than the mesh versions...I guess it makes me look more 'alien' and less 'veiled'.

London was very cold as we wandered Kensington and Oxford circus and Mayfair. It was about freezing with a bit of wind to lower the temp further. I wore four layers to go out including:
a transparent blue full enclosure skinsuit with gloves and feet but no mouthole
a second catsuit (opaque metallic blue) plus matching hood (also with no mouthole) and gloves
a black rubber corset and a black long, tight, ankle length hobble skirt which limits my stride. It zips down the back to a ridiculously small circumference, enforcing steps as small as three inches. Sir would allow only a small walking slit so my stride was just about a foot. Stairs were impassable.

Finally, I wore a full metallic blue dress with ankle length loose skirt, and a tight bodice with long tight sleeves cut in a raglan style so the dress curves nicely over my breast.

My boots were black rubber knee high boots over the two catsuits. Five inch spike heels and very pointed toes. They are very shiny which worked in London as shiny black patent was everywhere.

Over everything I wore the blue burqa with its internal silencing hood as my third hood and a third pair of gloves in metallic blue rubber which come up almost to the elbow. This was to insure that my hands emerging from the burqa would be both identical in colour and unfeeling as only a three layer rubber enclosure can make them. the appears to be a part of the burqa and Sir commented that he might have Peter make one with built-in gloves.

We went shopping, taking taxis around town, wandering through Harrods, and John Lewis, then off to Oxford Circus for some window shopping. Finally, we went back to Picadilly, went into Berwick street looking at fancy fabric (no latex) and ended up the day at Fortnam and Mason. Then back to our hotel where I warmed up for about an hour before we went out to a lovely restaurant for dinner.

Unfortunately we did not have time to get up to Islington and peruse the fetish shops.

I was not particularly cold under all those layers, but I was heavily restricted and restrained in walking, forced by the inner tight hobble skirt to take small steps which Sir happily accommodated.

So London was fascinating in cold blue rubber. We had quite a lot of looks and a few comments. One woman asked about the material when we were in Berwick street. No one seemed to expect me to be able to speak and no one seemed offended at a veiled blue spirit wafting her way through the streets.

We return to Texas this week and should have dinner with friends after that. i shall post again when we do. I have not had any more trouble flying veiled than i did before. I wear an open faced hood under a burqa and ask for a private screening which is always accommodated. I then put on a tighter, silencing hood later in a ladies room behind security. I usually sit quietly during the flight anyway and if I now have to 'keep my hands in full view, I do so through the slits in my burqa. I have not been asked to unglove.

Some people have asked my opinion of the new movement in France to ban the burqa. Let me state categorically that I am a libertarian and do not feel that ANY government has the right to tell any person how to dress or what to wear.

The argument about needing to see the face for security reasons is ludicrous. If you are a criminal you will add the crime of hooding, masking, or wearing a cycle helmet to your list. If you are not, then it makes no difference whether your face is shown or not.

The notion that veils or burqas are oppressive to women is just as ludicrous. people are oppressive to women, not clothing. I am certain there are plenty of women in the world who are forced to wear veils, burqas, and other such garb against their will. forced by either other people, peer pressure, culture, or belief. many who do so probably would like to not do so.

I am just as certain that there are women forced to wear tight short skirts, high heels, particular hairdos, bras, and even to have surgery by men or by their own perceptions of the requirements their society and class and circle puts on them.

To be forced against your will to conform to someone else's notion of proper attire or demeanor is wrong. To allow yourself to willingly submit to someone else's notion of dress, appearance, behaviour, and attitude is fetish...and a wonderful fetish it is too! We all have the right to build whatever type of relationship makes us happy...but no one has the right to make us unhappy or pressure us into a mode against our will.


If women may not veil, then where does it stop? men can't wear caps? women may not wear hats? sunglasses? makeup? perhaps cosmetic surgery will be outlawed? No long robes? No long dresses? Pockets can hide things, perhaps they must go. The list is endless.

France's leader is afraid of the changes coming to his country, but change WILL come. Soon my country of the USA will be Hispanic majority and will begin to speak Spanish more than English. While I do not believe in any religion or god myself, Islam will most likely continue to grow and be very popular with a vast number of people over the next few decades, supplanting Christianity just because people are seeking something else. But the majority of those people will want th epeaceful aspects of a religion and will want to live their lives and dress their bodies as they prefer.

In addition, fashions for the non-religious will move through extremes and waves where certain forms of dress shock and annoy the establishment, then become normative and entrenched. I remember how upset women born in the 20's were about miniskirts...but not about those incredible bullet bras of the fifties :)


Change happens and legislating against some minor aspect of it such as particular dress will not stop it. The powers that be in Europe and in the rest of the world need to understand that.

So I would say that people should be left alone to dress as they see fit, to express their opinions by means of their clothing and appearance as well as their voice and writing. (Or non-voice if they choose to be gagged).

regards
Lady

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear LatexLady
It is the first time that I post on your blog, even if I follow it carefully. Your posts are always so amazing and wonderful. But I just would like to say, as a french non muslim woman, that you are 100% right. Nobody has the right to impose specific ways of dressing by law. There is no real reasons related to security, so that leaves only two other possibilities: racism against muslims, or search for derivatives to escape the debate about the real problems of the country, unemployement crisis etc... Probably the leaders use also the first reason to seduce voters of the extrem right. This old story about France which would be the country of the human rights is now ridiculous.
Please continue to post as often as possible.
Love
Sandrine

Latex Lady said...

Anonymous, thank you for commenting. You are correct. I think that of the two reasons you site, such reactionary thinking and rhetoric is probably due more to the second, intrinsically than to the first. But, the reaction becomes racist by a process of neglecting to understand the ramifications of the actions it demands. many of the people supporting such a ban would not describe themselves as racist, but as protectioist against changes they don't like. The problem is, the protectionism gives they and others the incentive to descend into racist thinking.

These people fear change. They wan tto world to stay as it has and they resent processes which cause it to change. Migration of peoples and language, a hot point in France, in particular, is very frightening to many. cultural changes from hippies in the 60's to veiling in the 00's scares many.

This does NOT excuse such reactions. It merely explains them. Change will happen and such people who reject change seek to limit others right to expression and presentation might as well get over themselves.

It is unfortunate that in France, Liberte, and Egalite are apparently fine as long as you do not upset the president.
Lady

Anonymous said...

I am gutted that I did not know you were both going to be in London Lady!!!

Next time - fancy a coffee???

Have a great day
Andy

Sir Phil said...

Right So Lady Although I am a Democrat I am more of a progressive one. I to feel the world should embrace change and accept everyone for who they are (meaning the inner soul of a person and not by the type clothing they choose to wear in society) and not reject them. I am also a person with a disability so I do know and understand what your saying in your post.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever gone out in just a catsuit and a hood?
Also,thank you for the posts - you
must be very courageous going around in public in a rubber burqa.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with the French government willing to forbid masked faces in public places. I don't talk about the street, I talk about public institutions, banks, hospitals, as well as any place where masking your face can be abused and endanger security.

Your freedom stop where the freedom of the others start. Many total libertarians forget that, or ignore that. Without that golden rule, human rights don't exist anymore, and the world turns into anarchy.

Latex Lady said...

As a libertarian, I do recognize that my freedom to swing my fist stops at the other person's nose. But how does that apply here?

I understand that there are situations where I must reveal my face for identification purposes. Having done so and been verified by whatever security is in place, I should then be free to dress as I choose.

I saw a comment a while back where someone said that veiled ladies 'had the right' to see unveiled women, therefore, the unveiled should have the right to see those veiled. This is specious. My veiling does not impinge on anyone else's freedom, therefore I should not be restricted.

You say you agree with the French government being willing to limit veiling in public spaces, but you immediately back away by saying you do not mean on the street. My question then is, "where is the line to be drawn?" Buildings? Streets, Parks, Buses, Cars, Houses?

If you outlaw veils, then what about motorcycle helmets? dark glasses, or hats?

There is a danger in allowing any such restriction because it represents a slippery slope to more restriction and control.

This is not the same as a restriction on the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. That puts people in danger by actively encouraging a panicy reaction. Choosing to hide my face does not.

A private entity does have the right to limit someone on their property in some ways. A dress code may be enforced, language may be censored, people may be asked to leave based on their look.

But even this right is limited and most entities (firms, shops, churches, etc) have chosen not to censor their visitors and customers in this way...although there are still restaurants where a dinner jacket and tie are required.

But it is a different matter entirely for a government to dictate how its citizens and visitors may dress or present themselves. Government serves at the will of the people and must accept all its people. At the same time, the tyranny of the majority must be guarded against and government must serve all of its people...and should do so equally, regardless of dress.

This is not to say that security elements do not have to be taken into account. Verification that people are not carrying weapons is acceptable because carrying a weapon can be actively abused to the endangerment of others.

Hiding one's face in public does not strike me as anything that can harm another. It DOES limit the ability of security to view the face for identification purposes, but, as I said, that need can and should be accommodated by the individual for an identity check. I do question the value of checking ID, however. The bad person is going to show up with a false ID and disguised appearance anyway.

But, if simply wearing a veil cannot actively harm another, cannot impinge on the tip of their nose, then it should be allowed.

Any sensible villain would strive to look similar to the majority of others anyway. Why would true villains call attention to themselves by wearing a mask while NOT committing a crime? As Wednesday said in the Adams Family: "I'm dressed as a serial killer; they look like everyone else."

Women were long constrained to dress in certain ways and to act in certain ways...we could not wear pants legally in the west and women were even expected to sit in a carriage facing away from the direction of travel in the last century.

Having gained the freedom to dress any way we choose, we should not surrender it lightly even in the face of security threats...particularly when the freedom we seek harms none.

Masking my face is passive...it does NOT and CANNOT endanger others in and of itself. Committing a crime WHILE masked does make it more difficult to identify a person after the fact, but driving a car away from a crime also makes it more difficult to catch the criminal. Should all driving be restricted on the chance that some driving may be in aid of crime?

Beware the slippery slope!
Lady

Anonymous said...

Dear Latex Lady
How right you are. There should not be any legal or other restricion on an idividual's choice of clothes except in respect of public decency in accordance with the customs of the country in which they are.
A burka cannot possibly offend any standards of decency anywhere - quite the opposite. Women who wear it, for whatever reason, are to be commended; perhaps the proposed ban in France will result in more burka wearing elsewhere and - who knows - will encourage non-Musims to show solidarity with their Muslim sisters by adopting the burka themselves.
David

Anonymous said...

If the niqaab and co. weren't Muslim garments, the french government wouldn't give a damn about it. However, I wonder how many Muslimas really like wearning those outfits. Not many, I suppose.
I guess for pepole without a veil fetish, it is just a symbol of oppression.

Anonymous said...

This reads like it was written by a man and is sounding like a hoax. I've heard of no account from a single person who has met or can verify a single aspect of this blog.

That someone has ordered several custom burqa from Peter Lithe (sp) and "models" them in a handful of photos and conveys stories which read like fiction is hardly a basis for someone reading this to treat this as anything but fiction.

I am calling for you to meet someone who will verify your tale and provide evidence that it is true or absent your meeting that challenge I will declare you a fake and a coward. You don't have to reveal your identity. You can show up in a public place where several witnesses with cameras can interview you.

You have the wherewithal to travel the world and I am sure some can be found to meet with you at a mutually convenient location where this issue of hoax or not can be settled.

For those who don't care, please enjoy the fiction and consider it whatever you like, but absent proof be aware you are engaging in someone's (man?) interactive fantasy.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous at 9.10 AM: why shouldn't all this be true? I think everybody can acquire this lifestyle if they feel like it. I mean just go to youtube and type something with fetish in it.

BV

Anonymous said...

Anyone who has ever worn full body latex suits knows her stories of 24/24 encasement are fiction. 3 layers of latex, plus a dress, a corset and a burqa, the whole day? I'll believe it when I see it myself, which means never. There's a huge difference between being encased in one layer (+ maybe a Burqa) for one or two hours and being encased in 3+ layers for a full day.
It's still an enjoyable read though.

And yeah, the French are right to forbid masking in public places. One should not be allowed to remain anonymous in places like banks, hospitals, police stations and any other sensible places where security can be a major issue. I think any business should be allowed to refuse access to masked anonymous people. Sorry, but personally I don't let strangers I can't identify into my house, and the problem is worse when it comes to public places.
It has nothing to do with any religious problem - it has been proved that a burqa has NEVER been required by Muslim religion anyway -, it has also nothing to do with racism - it's simple common courtesy and a security problem.

Latex Lady said...

Wow!
It has been a while since I had any of those kind of comments. All I can say is, believe or don't believe...I cannot do more than I've done. But, to set the record straight, it was 23/7 with an hour out for bathing ... and it was a long time ago now.

With regard to veiling or masking in public places, I believe I said that private organizations have the right to set dress codes. Many choose not to because they do not wish to offend customers.

The notion that you are not anonymous in a public space, however, is false. Before the advent of cameras, you could be very anonymous in a public space. Even now, you are still anonymous until someone scans your face. Does the availability of a technology change my rights?

There are cultures where women veil completely in public places and they do not have any higher incidence of crime or terrorism than other cultures. As I said, the bad folk are going to mask their faces regardless of rules. That's why bank robbers wear ski masks...at least the smart ones do.

Interacting with the faceless is disconcerting to some people, that is true. But, just as dealing with a minority person, or a disfigured person was disconcerting in times past, this did not change the rights of those people to interact with society. I do not believe a person should have to change their desired appearance just to make others feel comfortable.
Lady

Anonymous said...

You submit to physical restraint and veiling because it is an expression of your sexuality, which outside the confines of your 'scene' or 'game', you choose.

Women who ensure 30 lashings for staring too long at another man, or being stoned to death because they displease their husbands do not have such luxuries.

Latex Lady said...

I agree with this comment, but I fail to see its relevance with respect to the previous discussion.

Anonymous said...

What a range of comments! I understand that people have been known to misuse the burqa to hide their identity - but this is not in the majority, thankfully.

As regards the reasons why people wear a burqa - Those who are forced against their will are ones who I sympathise with yet those who wear one out of their own free will, I admire for their sincerity to their religion [or in Lady's case, lifestyle].

For those who doubt - Lady is genuine, she DOES wear latex as often as she states and is a *true* rubberist. You need only have spoken to her over the last few years to realise that her and Gent are genuine, successful people who simply choose to lead what most would consider an alternative lifestyle.

Gent has even had the decency to directly email me on numerous occasions, despite his personal hectic schedule. I am very flattered that he took the time to do this and see him as a man who is to be respected.

I am also a genuine rubberist - I need the material and feel empty when I am unable to wear it. I understand Lady's and Gent's urges to wear latex and do not see their lifestyle to be extreme, but actually extremely fulfilling and healthy.

So people, each to their own of course, but one person's reality is not determined by another's opinion. Give me several layers of latex and a burqa for 23/7 any day :)

Regards
Andy

Anonymous said...

Thankfully freedom is respected - you have the freedom to stay out of France. You won't miss them, and they won't miss someone who can't make a minimal effort to integrate society and make other's life easier when sharing the public space with them. Because don't be fooled - when you go to a Airport and take a plane with your burqa, you annoy others and give more work to the employee, wasting their and the other passenger's time, just for your own selfish fetish pleasure, because you require special treatment.
I'm also a fetishist - more into leather than latex, mind you - and I also feel "empty" if I can't wear my favorite material - but my freedom stops where the other's freedom starts. It wouldn't come to my mind to wear a full head leather hood to e.g. my bank or an airport. That's called common sense and also being social. Not being a selfish little nuisance. Not giving our community the image of not only "out of norm" people, but also very annoying people.

Anonymous said...

The common sense argument as it relates to public activity is completely missed by those who use the public in one way or another as a backdrop or a prop for their fetish. It is selfish and non consensual to say the least.

But it is essentially a fetish need for many people - exhibitionism. And the thrill from exhibitionism NEED to have non consensual onlookers. This works at fetish events, where voyeurs get to get off on seeing their fetish fantasies there before their very own eyes and they feel their voyeurism is consensual in that the exhibitors have come to... be seen.

The type of exhibitionism that LL is engaged in is nothing short of selfish and uneccary and disrespectful to the very freedoms she relies on to pursue her fetish fun.

You want to wear a rubber dress, be my guest. You want to live in a country where all women are in chadors etc... be my guest. You want to live in this free and open society and abuse the common sense principles... think twice.

I don't think this will be tolerated and your phony excuses that this is a religious reason is not going to play forever.

veiled wife said...

I too wear niqab and/or a burqa not for religious reasons but because I am submisisve to my husband & he wishes me to dress that way. We have made along journey from my only wearing them for a an hour or two when going out to them becoming my 16 hours a day lifestyle, even when alone.
I now love being veiled & wouldn't dream of going out in public barefaced.
We also use gags & other restraints through mutual choice/pleasure.
I have no reason to doubt LL description of her lifestyle & have corresponded with her several times.

I believe the French goverment should not be able to dictate how women dress, except for circumstances like driving licences etc.

veiled wife
ashley_morg[at]hotmail.com

Latex Lady said...

MY, this has certainly generated a lot of comment. It seems to me that, at its core, the argument here is over the level freedom one has in a free society. Are individuals there to serve the needs of society or is society there to serve the needs of individuals. I contend it is the latter.

My lifestyle IS selfish, I agree. It is something I indulge in for mySELF, for the comfort it brings to mySELF. I do not know if it is exhibitionistic or not...my reasons for doing it are because my husband wants me to. If he wanted me to wear extremely short skirts and luxuriously high heeled pumps I would do that as well. If he wanted me to dress in tight jeans and a t-shirt and running shoes i would, of course...would that be any less exhibitionistic? All fashion is exhibitionistic to some degree...we like to be seen. and we all have individualistic tastes.

It IS an indulgence. But that does not make it wrong of me to indulge it. Our society is built upon the idea that individuals, by expressing themselves in their individual ways, by indulging their idiosyncratic desires, strengthen and improve our society. As members of an individualistic society we SHOULD indulge ourselves as long as such indulgence does not harm others.

There is talk of common sense limits on how one dresses. But individualism often breaks 'common sense' be it in fashion or in literature or other areas of self expression. Common sense would dictate that it is most efficient for everyone to dress the same, look the same, eat the same, etc. And wouldn't that be a shame?

Many clothing styles today prompt concerns over security...hoodies, baggy trousers, motorcycle helmets. Empirical evidence would indicate, however, that wearing underwear is a more dangerous act than wearing motorcycle helmets in public. Any style MIGHT be commandeered for nefarious purposes...but we don't demand strip searches of people in public just because they MIGHT be considering something criminal.

If I should not indulge my fetish desires because it makes work for others, should this prohibition be extended to others? Should religious dress be limited in public because it inconveniences some people? After all they are SELFISHLY demanding to present themselves, to dress themselves, as they believe they should. A tolerance for the SELF of others is at the core of a free society.

I contend this tolerance is vital, and our society has agreed as represented by the fact that our government HAS made accommodation for people who choose to dress in an individualistic style. Does this make more work for people? Yes, it does...and our government has deemed that extra to be worth it to preserve freedom of expression.

There seems to be an attitude that a fetish lifestyle is less important and more of an option than some other lifestyle such as a religious one. But all of these are the choice of the participant. and a free society must serve its individuals by accommodating these variations in chosen lifestyle. It is not anyone else's prerogative to say how important adherence to a chosen lifestyle is to an individual...or how important it may have become over time.

I AM exercising my rights as a member of this society to dress how I choose. I contend that as long as that exercise of my rights does not cause harm, then it MUST be tolerated in a free society. There is no freedom when rights we have cannot be exercised at will. To claim that exercising a right is disrespectful of that right makes no sense and begs the question of when it becomes OK to invoke our rights to individualistic action.

Tolerance for others' idiosyncrasies, from wearing latex burqas to strapping on phylacteries, to wearing heavy jewelery must be tolerated because to refuse any single right is to degrade all the rights of people in a free society.

regards
Lady

Anonymous said...

But your individual freedom is not affected. You still can dress however you want in private areas. It's only when you are in the public space you SHARE with OTHER PEOPLE that you have to make CONCESSIONS which ensure everybody's freedom is respected, and not only yours.
That's how life in society works.
Yeah, even for us fetishists, who share the public space with many other people.

Wriggler said...

Dear LatexLady,
Why has there never been an independently-verified and published photo or video taken of you anywhere in public during your many outings, in Ireland or elsewhere, such as your recent visit to London (the city with the most security cameras in the world)?
Sincerely,
Wriggler

Phone Sex said...

I am overwhelmed with your depiction. Thanks for giving out your creative mind's eye.

viagra online said...

I can't believe that somebody enjoys a trip to London, its the most cold-hearted city of Europe.