Illegal

[moonshadow]

What would you do, if it were illegal for you (a man) to wear your skirts? Would you accept the law and wear what you're supposed to, or would you fight? If you fight, how would you go about it? How would you handle the confrontation with law enforcement? How would you handle the courts?

No politics please.. just a straight up hypothetical question....

[skirted_in_SF]

I read in my local newspaper a few years ago that there actually was (at least at the time) a law making it illegal for a man to dress in woman's clothing except for Halloween and theatrical productions. I don't remember now, but the story may have been about the Board of Stupidvisors repealing a bunch of old laws that were outmoded.

[crfriend]

I'd "vote with my feet" and move. Some places are beyond help, and such a hypothetical place as the one posited would be one of them.

[JeffB1959]

Well, I'm not much for hypothetical situations, but I would probably have to consider moving as well. Fortunately, most modern municipalities have more important concerns in terms of governance than worrying about what clothes men wear.

[Judah14]

In the modern world a country that would have a law banning skirts for men would very likely have a tyrannical government banning other things as well, and of course the best thing to do is to leave for a free country respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[dillon]

I read in my local newspaper a few years ago that there actually was (at least at the time) a law making it illegal for a man to dress in woman's clothing except for Halloween and theatrical productions. I don't remember now, but the story may have been about the Board of Stupidvisors repealing a bunch of old laws that were outmoded.

If that was the case in SF of all places, then I would tend to simply ignore the law, perhaps even flaunt it, as obviously happened over time in SF. Of course the penalty would have much to do with it. If it was a theocracy demanding a death penalty for it, as might become the case under a Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee administration, then I would just go underground, as happens ultimately with EVERY legal prohibition. Prohibitions ALWAYS fail. They are the products of weak government that cannot lead with reason and purpose, and must resort to demonization, i.e., creating an enemy to rail against, as Hitler did with Jews. When carried to its ultimate conclusion, we have seen what happens.

But prohibitions failed against the pursuit of pleasure and perceived need in every instance. Homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, drugs...and will ultimately fail against guns and abortion. It is part of human character, especially in this country, to obstinately resist being controlled by a Draconian state.

Voting with feet is an option only when there is a place to run. We can look at Europe's migrant troubles to understand that the welcomes of other places are not of infinite endurance. But that too is an ultimate product of Draconian rule, and dumb, prejudiced, essentially evil policy, on the part of the lands being fled. The final decline of Rome was due mostly to such policy; I've forgotten which emperor decreed a rigid caste based society which would have kept generations in the same avocations, hereditarily, thwarting upward mobility and protecting an economic elite, but it led to the flight of the middle class from Rome to other parts of Europe.

But the idea that some broader prohibition against anything that deviates from some ill-defined gender norm, including obviously gender identity and sexual orientation, and enforced with the authority of absolute theocracy, is not so far-fetched as we may believe, at least in this country. We are perfectly capable of a Christian governmental-religion complex just as hideous as Wahabi Islam is in Saudi Arabia. Vigilence is required, but so is the free exercise of our rights while they exist. But the western equivalent of stonings and beheadings are not without precedent.

[moonshadow]

I'm not sure what I would do. I guess I'd just have to assess the situation when/if it arises. Skirting underground would sort of defeat the purpose for me though. It's not like smoking pot where you can get the high regardless of where you are, out in the open, or hiding in the basement. I like being out and about with a skirt on. Driving, walking in parks, so on and so forth. I suppose I could stick to the national forest, however I'm still subject to happen upon a park ranger or some nark that would report me at the earliest opportune moment.

Although an optimistic side of me thinks that there is a very slim chance of our nation coming to this state, still, the realist side of me is a constant reminder that a slim chance is still a chance. And yes Dillon, is FAR from impossible! If such laws were enacted, the police are obliged to arrest you. If we're lucky the penalty will just be a citation with a fine that can perhaps be defeated in court, and not be a jailable offence that you can actually taken in and booked for.

If it's just a fine, then I'd fight it, and if convicted, appeal it as high as I could. I'd probably cite the 14th amendment as protecting my freedom to wear skirts. As my interpretation of the amendment is that if they prohibit men from wearing skirts, they must also prohibit women from wearing them too. Now if we're talking jail time.... well that's a different story. And would depend on my personal situation. There is a lot to loose when you are sitting in jail. Particularly your job. However jobs can be replaced. But if I were to ultimately loose, I can see myself penniless, homeless, and jobless, with probably no other possessions that the clothes on my back... not even a skirt since they no doubt would have confiscated that by then.

Then again, during the various civil rights movements in our history, often times sitting in a jail cell was necessary.

Really, I'd probably attempt to join forces with the homosexual community, since we both would be fighting for something similar, that being.... the right to choose.

[skirts4me]

In the modern world a country that would have a law banning skirts for men would very likely have a tyrannical government banning other things as well, and of course the best thing to do is to leave for a free country respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, Judah14, there are countries with strict laws governing what men and women are allowed to wear. I would suggest making sure you know the local rules about such things if you intend travelling, especially to any of the strict Moslem countries.

[Judah14]

In the modern world a country that would have a law banning skirts for men would very likely have a tyrannical government banning other things as well, and of course the best thing to do is to leave for a free country respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Unfortunately, Judah14, there are countries with strict laws governing what men and women are allowed to wear. I would suggest making sure you know the local rules about such things if you intend travelling, especially to any of the strict Moslem countries.

In my case that will not be a problem because the skirts (and other skirted garments) I wear are traditional Muslim attire worn by men (like in the picture below), though other stuff that I like not relating to skirts may be banned as well.

[kingfish]

From about 150 years up through about 50 years ago dressing up in women's clothes out in public was illegal. I'm not just talking about redneck Mississippi, but places like New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and even San Fransisco.

Cross dressing was very much limited to private venues. Beyond Vaudeville stage and circus acts, there were private venues like people's houses, back yards, and private clubs where they could slip out of their gender box, shielded from the casual observer or morality enforcer.
In other words, they existed in a manner not unlike the nudist (or is that naturist) groups where people would get together and entertain each other beyond the sight of the general public.

[crfriend]

From about 150 years up through about 50 years ago dressing up in women's clothes out in public was illegal. I'm not just talking about redneck Mississippi, but places like New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and even San Fransisco.

Interesting, and I'd love to see copies of the original statutes just to see it it'd be possible to divine the original intent of the laws (unless they were merely codified versions of Deuteronomy, in which case they're not interesting at all but merely knee-jerk spasms in response to religious extremism -- "Hi ISIS!")

The other questions that naturally evolve from the above are, "Have they been repealed?" (one would be amazed as to what remains on the books decades after its "best used by date"), and "When were they repealed?" (in other words, "When did we get our act together and toss out the trash?")

I can see such things in Puritan-influenced New England, but some of the other cities called out rather amaze me.

[dillon]

From about 150 years up through about 50 years ago dressing up in women's clothes out in public was illegal. I'm not just talking about redneck Mississippi, but places like New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and even San Fransisco.

Interesting, and I'd love to see copies of the original statutes just to see it it'd be possible to divine the original intent of the laws (unless they were merely codified versions of Deuteronomy, in which case they're not interesting at all but merely knee-jerk spasms in response to religious extremism -- "Hi ISIS!")

The other questions that naturally evolve from the above are, "Have they been repealed?" (one would be amazed as to what remains on the books decades after its "best used by date"), and "When were they repealed?" (in other words, "When did we get our act together and toss out the trash?")

I can see such things in Puritan-influenced New England, but some of the other cities called out rather amaze me.

Perhaps a more interesting question is what defines a man wearing "women's" clothes? Is it anything a woman might wear? Clearly, if women wear trousers, then what remains for a man to lawfully wear? Did the same laws apply to women? Or does the double standard apply in that women may wear whatever they please, but men may only wear trousers? It seems like a law made for men too drunk to differentiate a transvestite from a hooker.

[crfriend]

Clearly, if women wear trousers, then what remains for a man to lawfully wear? Did the same laws apply to women?

If memory serves, it was only recently (within the past 5 years or so) that the City of Paris (France) repealed an old bylaw that prohibited women from wearing trousers within City limits -- and received some opposition regarding the appeal. So, there's a chance that the (similar) laws in various US jurisdictions could have been "two-way streets" -- that's why it's important to get a look at the actual text of the laws in question.

These sorts of shenanigans also point up the problem with the way that laws are handled in general, and the way that they can hang around indefinitely, long after their original use has long gone by, and cause quite the bit of grief later on. I'd like to see a system where each and every law must be reauthorised every five years or so -- individually. That'd keep dead chaff like the laws above from staying around for very long.

Or does the double standard apply in that women may wear whatever they please, but men may only wear trousers? It seems like a law made for men too drunk to differentiate a transvestite from a hooker.

Things weren't always so slanted towards women, recall; that's a trend that's only about 30 or 40 years old, although unfortunately still gaining steam. Before that, things could be pretty grim for women. Something had to be done, but the pendulum has swung vastly too far.

And, if somebody is too drunk to tell the difference between a cross-dresser and a hooker, may he get what he deserves. Drunkenness is no excuse for anything.

[moonshadow]

Well.... it's about time this thread started cooking!

Or does the double standard apply in that women may wear whatever they please, but men may only wear trousers?

As far as legality goes, it is my view and opinion that the 14th amendment protects both men and women in this case. It basically says that no state or jurisdiction in the U.S. can pass a law unless it applies to everyone. Thus, if a man can wear trousers, so can a woman, and if a woman can wear a skirt, so can a man. If men can't wear skirts.... neither can women.

I have heard a great number of debates on the homosexual marriage ruling in the U.S. The conservatives cite that it is a "state issue". And the simple fact is, that prior to 1868 it WAS a state issue. (how this particular issue wasn't addressed until over a hundred years later is another mystery) Just as prior to 1868 the matter of slaves was a perfectly legal and constitutional STATE issue. The 14th amendment changed all of that. While it's probably true that the original intent behind the amendment had little if anything to do with homosexual rights, or the rights of gender crossing fashion choices, the text still stands, and applies. No where does it say... "except for men who wear clothes for women".

If such a charge were ever brought before a FAIR and JUST, and oh by the way REPUBLICAN court (using the TRUE meaning of the word... "democracy" and "democrats would in theory support the majority rule), well that court would rule in favor of the skirt wearing man (or the trouser wearing woman).

I feel it also gets down to a more fundamental right... We live in a society where you can buy a house, but you have to obtain a PERMIT to work on it. You can buy a car, but you have to have a LICENSE to drive it, and it must be registered. Even us (humans) have to be registered with our government (social security number), so many of our God given rights of individuality have been eroded over time there is little left in our our body that we are in charge of. You can't even smoke a joint (a practice that harms no one) without running afoul with the long arm of the law.

The right, or as the authorities would have it.... the privilege (there are no "rights" in our world.... we are only as free as our government allows us to be), but the "privilege" to at least clad ourselves as we see fit is one of the very few personal freedoms we have left. If they take that away from us then there really isn't much left. What's next? Do they start censoring our speech? Oh wait... they already do.... Do they start taking away our religious freedom? Oh wait... they are trying.... just ask any Muslim. Is it REALLY that important to the zealots to decide what I wear???? I mean REALLY!?!? If they take that away... I ask you, how many more freedoms do we have left? Because if you really get right down to it... our liberties are at the total and complete mercy of the MOB that is true democracy! That's why we have a constitution that guarantees a republican government that grants us certain inalienable rights that can not be stripped by our government or what ever religious fanatic is trying to seize the white house! Those fanatics SAY they hold our constitution in high regard, yet I'm willing to bet they know about as much about our founding documents as they do that bible they like to beat everyone over the head with.

The only puzzle piece that I can't understand is the necessity of the 19th amendment (women's suffrage) because it seems to me that the 14th could have been invoked to guarantee the rights of women in regards to voting. And it is at this point I'd like to point out a current amendment that has yet to be ratified, and would like to call your attention to the Equal Rights Amendment, which apparently needs three more states for ratification. (Virginia has not ratified yet) Although the amendment is naturally being pushed by the feminist, if you read the text of the amendment it really doesn't swing the pendulum one way or another and in my view could only be viewed as WIN for men like us. But I'm still debating it in my head. I naturally distrust anything that comes from the feminist arena.

[Caultron]

I was at a hockey game last night wearing a team jersey, black utility kilt, black tights, and black knee-length boots with 3" heels. (Can't believe that's become normal for me but oh well.) Anyway, as I was walking in the concourse, a woman I didn't know stopped me to say there should be a law to make all men wear high heels.

She then went on to complain she could never find heels wide enough for her feet. She was only about 5' 5" and relatively thin, though, so she shouldn't have had fitting problems because of overall size or weight. I chanced a look at her feet but couldn't see them clearly because she was wearing sneakers.

I was about to suggest she try searching for her size at onlineshoes.com or zappos.com but then she rushed off to whatever she needed to do.

I guess her point was that men should have to wear heels so they understood how uncomfortable they can be, and then perhaps not expect women to wear them.

But in any event, she certainly had no objections to my wearing them.