An Interesting Conversation

[Skirt Chaser]

I would take a guess that IF the women of the family were to be convinced that a man in a skirt/kilt is a great thing, they would encourage their men to try a skirt/kilt.

Now Uncle Al, this could cause problems. Just think what would happen when all women start pestering their men to wear skirts, even if the men aren't interested.

[sapphire]

And think what would happen if the men in the family pestered their wives to wear skirts when the women preferred to wear trousers.

[Peter v]

Confusing.

Sorry, but I do try to write from the man in skirt point of vieuw and not from the side of women on a women's lib forum.
Are most men really so brainwashed as to deny themselves the same rights as their partner? Do men still have to be the underdog in a relationship?

Ultimatum is a big word.
If there is any meaning to what the man is doing, and that is a crucial point, is as I had said more than just a piece of material around his waist, as women will probably want to convince everyone that it is only a piece of clothing, nothing more, then why from the man in skirt point of vieuw should the wife always have the last say? Why not the man in this case? Is there a law that states no matter what, the woman always determines what is what and has the last say in matters? That seems to be the suggestion. As we all know, many women have problems when men, THEIR men wear skirts. ( what the real "problems" are, we may never know ) Why then are we even talking about men wearing skirts if we are to listen to people ( the wives etc ) who are nearly all against it and as it looks that they are bound by some law to no matter what have a veto right on all matters. In what light does that place men in any partnership? That certainly is not a equal rights partnership in my book. Especially when there apparently ( not known to me ) is no need to specify why the man may not wear skirts. Surely just Ï don't like it is not enough.

Of course normal sound diplomacy is most wise and respectful, but that should come from both sides. As most seem to be suggesting that we men who wear skirts can stand on their heads until they are blue in the face, but in most cases still cannot wear skirts just because the wife does not want it.

Don't forget, I'm talking about men for whom it is more, it is a sign that they have embraced the freedom to which they have a right to, and need to, to be able to express themselves, just like women and other people can express themselves in so many ways. But for the men whom we are talking about, wearing skirts is their escape, their means of expressing themselves, thus VERY important to them, for their very existence. Not just a momentary upsurge, a once and never again thing of no depth, no real importance, just superficial.

I think that women should have respect for those men, their husbands, and act accordingly. They are not the only people on this planet for whom all should bow. But that is perhaps the case in the US, as some seem to suggest if I am not mistaken.

And yes here in the Netherlands men behave similarly. Centuries of indoctrination have probably led to that. Men should not dominate, but nor should women.

But again, maybe I am not on a skirt for men forum, but on a women's lib forum.

Still confused.

And as always, this is only my opinion, nobody, nobody needs to follow what I have discussed, and should treat everything personal in his life as he thinks fit. That is ultimately between only him and his wife.

[sapphire]

Peter v,
I find your post offensive.

It makes me wonder why I bother supporting men in skirts.

[Kris]

Peter v,
I find your post offensive.

It makes me wonder why I bother supporting men in skirts.

I appreciate your honesty, Diane.
I generally avoid saying anything that could be seen as a "flame", but...
For the most part, I find Peter's posts to be long-winded and confusing, often nearly incomprehensible.
When I see one of his longer posts, I think to myself, "Oh, no, another of Peter's speeches".
Then I treat it pretty much like I do the car radio when I get far from the station and the sound gets weak and full of static. I ignore it until something I can understand and enjoy comes on.
Sorry, Peter, but I bet a lot of people feel the same way. They just haven't come out and said so.

Kris

[AMM]

Oscar the Grouch here, who figures he know a thing or two about garbage:

I wish I could say that there's only one poster like that.

Whenever the subject (or even the word) "women" comes up in an all-male or almost all-male group, like SkirtCafe, I cringe.

I know I'm going to hear a lot of men talking about "women" as if they were all alike, like a bunch of house plants of the same species, and talking as if women's only reason for existing were to meet the men's needs. And being utterly clueless of the role of their own attitudes and behavior.

For example, the perennial "why don't women wear skirts more. Don't they know how much we [men] like it when they do?" The idea that (a) "women" (that mass of identical clones) might feel they have their own perfectly good reasons not to wear skirts, or that (b) "women" might have something else to do in life besides please these men, doesn't seem to have entered any of these men's heads.

Peter v is not the only one who has expressed the idea that it's "women's" fault that more men don't wear skirts. Whether it's that "women" are forbidding men from wearing them, or it's that "women" aren't encouraging them enough, or whatever, it comes down to the same thing: "women" aren't really human beings with their own problems, neuroses, desires, etc. They just exist to make us men's lives better or worse. And, of course, if us men's lives aren't as good as we would like, it wouldn't be our responsibility: it must be those evil wimminz, who aren't doing what they spozed to.

I seem to recall that one of the women who post here once complained that the talk here was like "a locker room." I wonder if this is the sort of thing she meant.

[Peter v]

Honesty, that is what it is all about isn't it?
I wish to take part in discussions and do try to describe as well as I can what I wish to say. I am prepared to say what I think. And do of course try to do so with respect for all. I do also realise that with every word said, there may be a hundred reasons for others to argument them, right or wrong, but that doesn't deter me from trying my best to say what I think. How many others are prepared to place any posting of a length more than a few lines for fear of having the same happen to them?

If my posting in any way was genuinely offensive, which I assure you it surely was NOT intended, then I do apollogise for that.
With regards to the "length" of the postings, are we so far degraded that we cannot even read one book page perhaps without tiring? So excuses if I have done anything wrong here.

For the record, I do very much dislike (hate) the macho dominant (in a negative way)type man. Or the same dominance of any woman.
I do believe that with regards to skirt wearing, men should stand up for their right to do so.
That women involved have all the right to dislike it, whatever, but should not prevent him from doing so, if anything support his, their partners choice to do so.
THEN, after the man has stood up for himself, is "allowed to wear" ( is not prevented from wearing ) skirts, and is supported by his partner / wife, OF COURSE< discuss what it is that the woman involved has a "problem" with. BOTH have the right to be individuals, and in general life partners should respect and support each other rather than prevent each other from doing things / from being who they are.

In reaction to:
Cluelessness at the Cafe (Was: An Interesting Conversation)
Post by AMM on Fri Nov 28, 2008 6:11 am

I do agree with what you say.
I do definitely do not write from a dominant male standpoint, and do hope that the readers are also not so and do not wishfully read posts seeking that suggestion. That perhaps says more about the reader than the writer....
But I was talking about the situations where it was indeed the case where women were forbidding men or keeping them so short lined that they could not wear skirts, but that the men involved were possibly only too "willingly" placing that "right" to rule over them to the women involved. After all, we are talking about getting into skirts, not being denied the right to do so.

In such a discussion I am only talking about the people involved with the topic, not all the people who do get along, have respect for each other. Definitely not all the men or women of the world. Only the group which is relevant to the particular topic being spoken about. And I cannot delve into each case to describe what reasons the woman or the man does or does not have to do what he or she wants to. Surely that cannot be asked, then no one can ever write anything again.

There is no suggestion that the men are forcing the women involved to do anything, but it would seem that in the situations talked about that the women are preventing the men from wearing skirts. Nobody is forcing anybody, but the men are apparently being kept from wearing skirts. ( note I am not saying being forced to wear only pants )

So I have to speak in general terms, regarding the subject at hand. Hoping that the readers are understanding that the text has been written for people who are reading it from an insiders standing point, knowing what it is about, being skirt wearers themselves. And definitely NOT from the standing point being the ugly macho overheersers ( which unfortunately many men are ) that think they are the center of the world and every body has to bow for them . No I think I am talking to an audience that can put discussions in their correct perspective. Which gives no guarante that some postings will not be misinterpretated.

Again I will apologise for a posting that is perhaps too long to read, for some.

[Since1982]

Peter said: If my posting in any way was genuinely offensive, which I assure you it surely was NOT intended, then I do apollogise for that.

About 75% of your posts are offensive to someone. Most don't respond. You're infamous on here for long rambling treatises on everything that you feel like saying about everyone and everything no matter how disrespectful, and you always end them with: If what I said bothered anyone I'm genuinely sorry...I say, that's BS.

or

Peter said AGAIN: Again I will apologise for a posting that is perhaps too long to read, for some.

for some??? who? the stupid among us, or the intellectually impaired?

[Big and Bashful]

Peter v,
I find your post offensive.

It makes me wonder why I bother supporting men in skirts.

I appreciate your honesty, Diane.
I generally avoid saying anything that could be seen as a "flame", but...
For the most part, I find Peter's posts to be long-winded and confusing, often nearly incomprehensible.
When I see one of his longer posts, I think to myself, "Oh, no, another of Peter's speeches".
Then I treat it pretty much like I do the car radio when I get far from the station and the sound gets weak and full of static. I ignore it until something I can understand and enjoy comes on.
Sorry, Peter, but I bet a lot of people feel the same way. They just haven't come out and said so.

Kris

I have said so, you say it well though. Peter's posts are mostly totally incomprehensible to me, that is after making allowances for english not being his native language. I am at the point where, if there was another forum that was not dominated by crossdressers etc. (like this one was in the good old days) I would leave and join that one, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to go anymore. So I guess I will have to put up with PV's ramblings or give up completely.

If someone starts a forum along the lines of the Toms era cafe, count me in!

[crfriend]

[Mod hat on, dammit]

Alright, it seems that this thread has reached the end of the line, well off the spur where it started, and is thoroughly "on the ground" at this point. Hence, I'm going to close it.

[Mod hat off]

We'd all do well to remember that whether English is our "mother tongue" or not, this is a primarily English-speaking forum, and that a decent command of the language is certainly appreciated, if not expected. I've been accused of being long-winded in the past; I've been accused of rambling; heck, I think I was once accused of being incoherent -- but never all at the same time! That said, I'm not going to allow everybody to slag off on a poster's incomplete mastery of the language.

Before everyone gets in a tizzy over this, I'd like to remind folks that we're here to encourage, support, foster, and advocate for the furtherance of skirted looks on men. In regards to that aim, we have a fundamental problem: where, precisely, is the line between "crossdressing" and "wearing a skirted garment as a man". As I've mentioned in the past, we have a preponderance of "freestylers" here, and that's pretty much by necessity: one cannot get more masculine than an all-up kilt rig in an evening style; hence, everything else has a tendency to lean toward the "feminine". This is neither here nor there, it just is, and we need to face it.

Those us who wear kilts have my admiration: well done! Those of us who have taken a slightly different tack also have my admiration: we've generated some really compelling looks for the general public to contemplate. Both are important in the "big picture", and both play a vital role. However, one of SkirtCafe's tenets is "gender honesty", and, in my opinion (in a non-moderator role) that means that there should be no confusion, especially initial, as to an onlooker's perception of the gender of a chap in a skirted garment. We all understand that there are "edge cases", even "corner cases", that cannot be avoided, but hope that we as a community can overcome that.

In closing, before I get accused of rambling, I'm going to shut up.