Some Articles I've Written

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.
ziggy_encaoua
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Some Articles I've Written

Post by ziggy_encaoua »

Image

Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

An interesting perspective, to be sure!

I'm not sure there are many here who are set on going down the "Men's Fashion Freedom" road, it's more an "Atrium" quest, as I see it. I just get the feeling that Joe Public, 'confronted' by someone expressing, shall we say, extreme 'Fashion Freedom' is going to think , "Oh! A badly-dressed tranny!" To be honest, that's probably what I would think, too.

I would certainly agree that the belligerant (& presumably sexually motivated?) trannies are the biggest obstacle we face as men wearing unbifurcated clothing. I've no interest in wearing 'fem' clothes - period. I've no desire to be androgenous, either. So, every tranny (or poorly 'passing' transexual, sad to say) presents a 'conflict point' when, for instance, trying to re-assure spouse or partner that donning a skirt isn't going to lead to tranvestism.

I fully agree with your approach to 'convert' trannies, though! I'm of the opinion that for some, it's just their 'take' on the pre-conceived notion that, "If I'm going to wear a skirt, I must also wear high heels, etc., etc."

Another mis-conception you could touch upon, is the wierd idea the Press (& therefore, Joe Public!) has that blokes who wear skirts must be homosexual. According to some homosexual friends of ours, the most 'aggro' seen in Nottingham on a weekend's evening is between TVs and themselves!

User avatar
AMM
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: Thanks for all the fish!

Post by AMM »

The topic you address -- Fashion Freedom vs. Crossdressing/Transvestititism
-- deserves a lot more thought than I will have time for for quite a while.

My first reaction, though, to your articles is that I think you have some good points in there, but there's a lot of other stuff that will cause most readers to dismiss what you are saying.

I agree that there's a lot of "group think" going on in the crossdressing community. And neither the crossdressing community nor the society at large are comfortable with people whose way of dressing dress doesn't pigeonhole them into one or the other gender category (or the third: androgyny.) I won't elaborate, since this topic has been pretty well hashed out in this forum.

But I have a problem with a lot of what you say about what I call "orthodox crossdressers."

For one thing, one gets the impression that you haven't really read what the Crossdressing community is writing. You seem to use the word "trannie" to mean "transvestite"; I have the impression that within the community it tends to refer to transsexuals ("crossdresser" is the preferred word for non-transsexual transvestites.) Most crossdressers deny that their crossdressing is primarly sexual -- some deny any sexual aspect. "Expressing one's feminine side" is what they say they are doing. And the grey area where crossdressing blends into transsexuality is of more concern than the grey area between male fashion and female fashion. (Many crossdressers don't wear skirts at all.)

"Autogynophilia" (sp.?) is only one theory of what crossdressing is about, and not a generally accepted one.

You may disagree with what they say. Actually, I have my disagreements with a lot of what crossdressers write, and I would not feel comfortable trying to be a part of that community. But if you describe them in terms that they don't agree with and don't address what they say they are doing, you risk being dismissed as just another trans-phobic idiot.

-- AMM
Thanks for all the fish.

Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

A 'trannie' is almost exclusively used as an abbreviation for 'transvestite' (or possibly a very poorly passing transexual person) in the UK. Similarly, a male homosexual who 'glams-up', invariably sets out to parody the female person, i.e, they are "Drag Queens", and of course, in doing so, deliberately 'wind up' the said TVs!!!

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 10853
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Post by crfriend »

AMM wrote:My first reaction, though, to your articles is that I think you have some good points in there, but there's a lot of other stuff that will cause most readers to dismiss what you are saying.
I read the three essays and was struck by the amount of seeming anger in them. The notion, if there really is one, of "mens' fashion freedom" needs to be approached in a rational dispassionate way. Weighing the dissertation down with angry-sounding rhetoric, I believe, is counterproductive to the writer's thesis.

The core statements of "'crossdressers' are overwhelmingly heterosexual", "most transvestites pursue their fantasy for erotic reasons", and "transvestism is usually not linked with gender dysphoria" have been well hashed-over in both serious and "pop" psychology circles -- and, for the most part, are valid.

What put me off on these essays was the tone with which the author presented his thesis. The thesis is a valid one -- that transvestism, fetishism, and autoeroticism are not part of "mens' fashion freedom". I just happen to believe that the notion needs to be presented in a way where confusion with the other stereotypical notions are not even invoked in the reader's mind. Why should they be invoked, unless to confuse or to argue with the reader?

Merlin commented on the notion of such a crusade in his commentary, and I'll state my views herewith:

1) Anybody should be allowed to wear what they (to use a neutral pronoun) so desire so long as the garment meets basic standards of decency.

2) The obsolete notion of "Only males can 'crossdress'" needs to be expunged from popular and, more importantly, professional literature.

3) "Unbirfucated" garments are commonly worn, by both sexes, across much of the planet; most of the issues in this context have to do with problems in "western culture". Let's hammer on our own backward notions of things before trying to create something "new".

In my view, "mens' fashion freedom" is a canard; if you want to wear something, just go ahead and wear it -- as yourself. Wear it with confidence and dignity; wear it with humility and modesty; but most of all, wear it as yourself not as somebody else or a notion of somebody else. Anything less than that perfect and open honesty in this is, I believe, counterproductive. If you want to wear a skirt in place of trousers, just go ahead and do it; don't wait for somebody else to offer a vague and meek excuse of, "well, it's really OK, lots of other men do" because you'll be waiting a long time for that lame excuse to gain acceptance. If you wear skirts, wear them proudly -- stand tall and make no excuses. You'll find that confidence has a way of disarming detractors before they ever get to be troublemakers.

As an aside, don't get me going about androgeny; I find it neither attractive nor remotely interesting.

And, as far as the term "tranny" goes, I've always heard it used in reference to automotive transmissions. Hardly a sexually-charged device. That is, unless, you really want to get into the passions of manual versus automatic gearboxes and where the stick should go.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

G.Shaw
Active Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:15 am
Location: Land-O-Lakes, Florida, USA

Post by G.Shaw »

I will echo most of what has already been posted though I'm still unclear on the direct or indirect audience.

I'll provide this addition though. If you want your arguments to be considered legitimate then check the grammar and spelling. Nothing detracts from a presenter's argument more than misspellings and poor grammar. Realizing that this is quite picky. Overall impression is determined by grammatical accuracy. The grammar as much as the theme seeming to be angry or aggressively attacking ‘transvestitism’ is contributing to the overall impression.

Greg
LOL, FL

ziggy_encaoua
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Post by ziggy_encaoua »

AMM wrote: "Autogynophilia" (sp.?) is only one theory of what crossdressing is about, and not a generally accepted one.
Believe TVs might BS that they crossdress for reasons other then sexual arousal however its a lie they weave & somebody needs to expose the truth.
Image

isobar
Active Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: England

Post by isobar »

ziggy_encaoua wrote:http://www.defiant-angel.com/fashion_article_index.htm

Let me know what you reckon?
Embarrassingly awful! Get someone to edit your stuff and you might have a chance of making your points. Even then, you aren't going to convert anyone by insulting them.
Dom

ziggy_encaoua
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Post by ziggy_encaoua »

http://www.kiltmen.com/freestyle.htm

Anybody read this article?
Image

ziggy_encaoua
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Post by ziggy_encaoua »

merlin wrote: Another mis-conception you could touch upon, is the wierd idea the Press (& therefore, Joe Public!) has that blokes who wear skirts must be homosexual. According to some homosexual friends of ours, the most 'aggro' seen in Nottingham on a weekend's evening is between TVs and themselves!

Yeah as well as getting trannies to stop making asses of themselves I do have it in mind to get your average bloke to start thinking more broadly about male fashion. Justy haven't had time to get round to writing that article yet.
Image

Mary Jane Boy
Active Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:04 pm
Location: NH Seacoast
Contact:

Post by Mary Jane Boy »

ziggy_encaoua wrote:http://www.kiltmen.com/freestyle.htm

Anybody read this article?
Well, whether you agree with WDB or not, he does state his case very well.

I wonder what he would file me under though?

Mary Jane Boy
Mary Jane Boy

http://www.mary-janeshoes.com

"Mary Jane's - not just for girls anymore!"

Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

WDB's premise that,

"If you have visited Tom's Cafe and other "men in skirts" message boards, you have probably noticed two competing philosophies being expressed by the men who participate. ("Braveheart" & "Freestyle")", when qualified by his later summation, "In actual practice, the Freestyle adherents are diverse and hard to categorize. They seem to be spread across a broad spectrum between the following two orientations:

A relatively masculine orientation, in which women's skirts or other things traditionally associated with female fashion are given a masculine presentation or otherwise incorporated into a masculine fashion statement; and
An extremely feminine orientation, in which women's clothing and other aspects of female fashion are adopted to present a feminine appearance, even to the point of full drag, including wigs, make-up, fake breasts, and all.",

may well have held good way back in the nineties (but even then were very few). :think:

Nowadays, to my reckoning, there are none of the EFO brigade amongst the Cafe fraternity. And haven't been for some long time. :naughty: The staunch, as well as the insecure ("My Kilt's not a skirt - so there!" sniffle!), 'Kilt Only' folk have migrated to their own (PC niche) forums, as of course, they are entitled to do. :shifty: Perhaps WDB might like to edit an otherwise sound article to reflect the current forum spectrum? After all, a decade is (almost!) eternity in Internet terms! :)

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 10853
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Post by crfriend »

merlin wrote:Nowadays, to my reckoning, there are none of the EFO brigade amongst the Cafe fraternity.
"EFO brigade"?

I suspect that WDB might be surprised at how things have evolved here at "The Cafe" over the past half-decade (you can call five years that). The way I've seen the forum develop has shown that we already have all the "freedom" we need (standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were), it's getting recognised that skirted garmets offer some advantages (and, yes, disadvantages) over tr*users, and that some level of practical advice is still required for folks new to the notion (like, "Do you tuck shirts in or not?").
Merlin wrote:The staunch, as well as theinsecure ("My Kilt's not a skirt - so there!" sniffle!), 'Kilt Only' folk have migrated to their own (PC niche) forums, as of course, they are entitled to do. :shifty:
The angry fragmentation that took place in the '90s was unfortunate, but, just possibly inevitable at the time. I wonder if the same thing would happen now in the late '00s.
Merlin wrote:Perhaps WDB might like to edit an otherwise sound article to reflect the current forum spectrum? After all, a decade is (almost!) eternity in Internet terms! :)
I wonder if he's still interested? After all, a decade is quite a bit of time when viewed in terms of a human lifetime.
MJB wrote:I wonder what he would file me under though?
Since you're clearly not trying to pass as female, and you present as male (at least visually; I don't know about how you use your voice), that you'd class as a "freestying braveheart" (he was working toward inclusiveness in the essay). But that's just a guess, you'd have to go to the source to be sure.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

crfriend wrote:"EFO brigade"?
Cross-dressers/Transvestites. :shake: :mad: :confused:

ziggy_encaoua
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Surrey UK
Contact:

Post by ziggy_encaoua »

More the case

Cross-dressers/Transvestites (where's the puke smiley?)
Image

Post Reply