Appropriately Impractical

I've been toying with some design ideas that may make it slightly difficult for my models to walk.  I say slightly because it's not like they wouldn't be able to walk ... just that their stride may need be somewhat shorter than a natural walk.  If I were producing womenswear I probably wouldn't question the designs, we wear skirts and dresses that make it difficult for us to bend over, jeans that mean we can't cross our legs, tops that we know not to go out for a big meal wearing, full length dresses that we change the way we walk in - and many more variously impractical garments.  Menswear however seems to be a different story.  My guess is that it would be pretty hard to get a guy into something that impinged on his movement or general activities in any way.

So I kept thinking about it - how far can I push impracticality in design until it is inappropriate and unjustified?  Impractical design in womenswear can often lean toward S&M and fetish influences, rendering the final look rather sexy (in a rather unfeminist way).  When menswear begins to become restrictive however, it for some reason can play out in a less sexy manner, representing a loss of power - an idea which has been traditionally sexualised and often empowering in womenswear - but which does not necessarily work in menswear.

So how far can impractical design be pushed in menswear and how can it become sexy and empowering and avoid becoming ridiculous?  How far can you push these designs before they lose all commercial meaning and would never actually be seen on a man?  I haven't found the answers yet ... but if I do I'll be sure to let you know.

Image at http://www.imyouare.com/433/Bondage_Warriors_by_Steven_Klein