The men's skirt multiverse

[moonshadow]

For those who subscribe to the theory.... it stands to reason that somewhere out there, among one of the infinite number of universes, there resides one where all men wear skirts.

Now this post isn't meant to be some corny dumb "just for @#$%'s and giggles waste of time". If you want to have a little fun with the discussion.... I pose the question.... what would be different in the history of "that" universe as opposed to ours to make male skirt wearing the norm?

Just a little fun "shooting the bull" conversation....

For some reason, I can't shake this feeling that it might be somewhat more peaceful.

Really, I think it would take just one little verse in the good old holy book advocating it, or dare I say, commanding it to make it so! --- Hey, still not impossible.... you never know what holy text they are going to unearth in the middle east! "and then the Lord said.... men, do not allow your garments to have an inseam, for such in an abomination unto the Lord your God"

Then just think, there might be a site called "trouser cafe" where men are grouping together and encouraging one another to wear trousers in spite of all harassment and shunning.

[crfriend]

I pose the question.... what would be different in the history of "that" universe as opposed to ours to make male skirt wearing the norm?

First off, the easiest and most direct way to get there would be to envision a world in which beasts of burden which could easily be ridden astride did not exist.

Hypothetically, let's get rid of horses, ponies, and donkeys. The upper end of "small" beasts of burden could likely be in the llama size; the next size up might be an ox [0]. One is realistically too small to ride, save for the smallest hominids, and the other far too large. The inhabitants of that universe would need to contrive appurtenances to transport themselves in using such beasts (either atop, as in the case of the howdah on an elephant, or behind in some form of carriage). With no need to straddle for transport, the need for split garments disappears. With no ingrained basis for straddling something like a horse, early bicycles would likely have been developed from the start with dropped frames -- or would have been tricycles instead -- so a high object directly between the legs would not have been used.

Let's look at another possibility. Imagine a world -- or at least a society -- where men were valued for their artistic and philosophical input, and not just their brawn and ability to do ill to other men (frequently in the name of women), or to hunt and kill and generally do all the "heavy lifting" of a pre-industrial society. The "rough and tumble" world of the male human doesn't exactly lend itself to frippery and decoration (unlike in the animal kingdom where the female has a larger responsibility societally), and so humans in this universe got short shrift when it came to costume. For a while, men did their best, but the limited tableau greatly limited the variety of usable options. Women, on the other hand, were coddled by their males (we share blame in this too, guys) and could adopt more lavish styles because they did less in the real world that could have caused problems with their clothing choices. (This, of course, caused other problems which are beyond the scope of this hypothesis.)

The earliest costume -- likely for males and females alike -- would have been the loincloth of animal-hide; this would have been a near necessity on the African plains because what's on those plains isn't what you see out your side window. That grass is long, it's stiff, and it's sharp -- just the sort of stuff you don't want your bits getting slashed by. (When on the move, everybody follow the tallest male, single file. One, he'll see (and draw) predators; two, he'll flatten the grass for the rest of us.) This is way pre-history, of course, but shortly thereafter, and of necessity once colder climates were encountered, skirt-like garments and robes would have been worn by both sexes.

So, there we have two fairly small changes, neither of which is entirely beyond the realm of speculation, that could have altered things. Recall that the Romans regarded trouser-wearing as a barbarian activity -- mainly because the Romans didn't ride horses, they used them for towing [1]. Also, we can pitch that ridiculous passage from Deuteronomy right into the bin where it belongs as while the Jews would have known of horses (and were familiar with donkeys [2]) they would not have ridden as a matter of habit. Deuteronomy has to do with "Orthodox Transvestism" where the male is masquerading as a female for advantage -- NOT the ditching of trousers as a garment because, if trousers existed in that part of the world at the time, they would have been rather rare.

There's a start. The fluttering of a butterfly, if you will, that might cause a typhoon on the other side of the planet.


[0] This leaves a "hole" in the ecosystem which needs filling -- a nasty proposition as something will evolve to fill it.
[1] Echoes of this live on to this very day.
[2] There's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it.

[moonshadow]

Let's look at another possibility. Imagine a world -- or at least a society -- where men were valued for their artistic and philosophical input, and not just their brawn and ability to do ill to other men (frequently in the name of women)

I know I'd like to see such a world... where men are not considered so "disposable".

Then again, history is littered with "philosophical" men. Some for the betterment of humanity, some it would seem... not so much.

[dillon]

Ironically, or perhaps predictably, the "orthodox transvestism" Carl wrote of is a tactic occasionally employed by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terror groups against Iraqi and Afghan troops, who are reluctant to search women because of their cultural and religious practices. The all-concealing burqa is the perfect camoflage for an attacker. I have heard from Marines here that many times suicide bombers identified as women were actually young men/boys who were not searched by local army or policemen. Their Iraqi and Afghan government spokespeople rarely concede that this was the mode of their deception, and in the aftermath of a bombing, such evidence is commonly ignored. Apparently it is a sore subject, and they would rather declare that the bomber was female. It points up one great value of women in the military; they can search "women." A male jihadist is apparently indoctrinated in a way that rationalizes dressing as female to conduct a suicide attack, but he would not wish to actually be segregated with women for searching before detonating himself. Such bombings are fewer when there is a probability of interception before reaching a target.

[moonshadow]

Ironically, or perhaps predictably, the "orthodox transvestism" Carl wrote of is a tactic occasionally employed by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terror groups against Iraqi and Afghan troops, who are reluctant to search women because of their cultural and religious practices. The all-concealing burqa is the perfect camoflage for an attacker. I have heard from Marines here that many times suicide bombers identified as women were actually young men/boys who were not searched by local army or policemen. Their Iraqi and Afghan government spokespeople rarely concede that this was the mode of their deception, and in the aftermath of a bombing, such evidence is commonly ignored. Apparently it is a sore subject, and they would rather declare that the bomber was female. It points up one great value of women in the military; they can search "women." A male jihadist is apparently indoctrinated in a way that rationalizes dressing as female to conduct a suicide attack, but he would not wish to actually be segregated with women for searching before detonating himself. Such bombings are fewer when there is a probability of interception before reaching a target.

Interesting. I didn't know this. My first thought is, that this is what leads to laws against "dressing as a woman", and given the circumstances- such laws can seem justified. At least on a temporary basis until order is restored. On the other hand, they could also simply adjust their culture to make women and men more equal in every way, including female searches. But I don't look for the latter to be employed at all. Hell even here in the U.S. law enforcement and justice is still VERY rarely dispensed evenly between genders.

I've been told that one of the reasons the passage in Deuteronomy exist is so men can not dress as women to avoid male obligations, such as fighting in conflicts, as well as to not be sexually attractive to other men. I suppose in the days before fingerprints, social security numbers, and the like, with no accurate way to truly identify people should they alter their appearance, such a law would almost make sense. However in the present day, if an 18 year old boy was to dress as a girl, and the draft were to be reinstated, then something tells me Uncle Sam would still find him.

In fact, there has been talk of requiring women in this country to be registered for conscription. Something I fully support by the way. So Joe dressing like Jane wouldn't help him anyway. The current women's right movement is all about equal this and equal that.... but I say.. you can't take the good without the bad. Being a man isn't always fun and peachy girls.... In fact... it RARELY IS!

Steering this slightly back on topic... I'd like to visit a universe where women played the men's role and vice versa (male skirt wearing included).... see how they like it when they truly have to "wear the pants"! There might even be a "skirt cafe" only dominated by women who simply want to wear skirts without harassment.

I don't suppose however there would be a "perceptible willy" thread though!

Wonder what a "female" Moon Shadow would complain about?

[crfriend]

Ironically, or perhaps predictably, the "orthodox transvestism" Carl wrote of is a tactic occasionally employed by Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other terror groups against Iraqi and Afghan troops, who are reluctant to search women because of their cultural and religious practices.

We can expect this tactic to start being used in countries who place "religious freedom" over "societal tranquility". In general, most Western civilisations place a premium on the ability of individuals to be identified on sight -- and some of this is codified into law; note that in most Western countries, the penalty for committing a crime whilst masked is more severe than if not. It's for this reason I tended to support France in its attempt to ban the burqa, and I would support the US in banning the "hoodie". Yes, these do involve invasions into religious and cultural freedoms, but the benefit to all of society outweighs those limits. If the majority of the society is of a religion that tolerates going about masked, then that society is welcome to it.

Apparently [males wearing burqas for an attack] is a sore subject, and they would rather declare that the bomber was female.

Some recent work seems to be pointing up that women can, in certain circumstances, be even more violently-inclined than men. This was briefly mentioned following the fiasco in San Bernadino, California but has slipped beneath the RADAR somehow.

Of note is that in each and every "terrorist action" in the United States the "terrorists" have won; every single time, the power structure has clamped down in civil liberties instead of actually doing anything to combat the real problem. The record is more varied in the European sphere, and I hope the European powers get it right going forward as they're more susceptible to such acts than the US is by simple proximity to the source of the trouble.

And, no, despite the howling of the United States' current crop of "Presidential" wannabes, violence and military action are not the answer, any more than further erosion of civil liberties here are.

[moonshadow]

I would support the US in banning the "hoodie"

Not sure if I agree with this. And not only because I personally own a few, and rather enjoy the style, but they are- for what it's worth, practical. When the wind gets to blowing, or my ears start to get a little to nipped, it's nice to be able to throw up the hood for a little warmth. I wear one often with skirts as I think it works with the style I'm wearing (in my eye anyway).

We start getting into banning certain garments to curtail violence then where do we draw the line? Before you know it muggers are wearing wigs, dresses, and makeup in order hide their true identity from authorities. Next thing, laws start cropping up prohibiting men wearing anything that would make them look "female".... men in skirts included.... and the pro-conservative zealots would be right in their glory.

Let them keep the hoodie.... it keeps the bullseye off our backs. I don't think a simple garment ban will curtail crime at any measurable rate.... the criminals will just adapt.

I'm just sayin.... it's a slippery slope...

[moonshadow]

Next thing, laws start cropping up prohibiting men wearing anything that would make them look "female".... men in skirts included.... and the pro-conservative zealots would be right in their glory.

And before anyone thinks that it can't happen.... I argue that with the right amount of fear and hysteria anything is possible. There are several "witch hunts" going on in the present day.

Some of us have been wearing skirts long enough to where we no longer notice the ugly looks and snares, but they are still there. When my wife, daughter, and I go out and I'm skirted, they are always telling me of countless dirty looks I receive, and I didn't notice a single one! (six eyes are more vigilant than two) Make no mistake.... many do think that just because we are wearing skirts.... we are up to no good! I have no doubt that if I were to visit a childrens park, alone, skirted, just to enjoy the day and watch the children play, it wouldn't be 30 minutes and I'm sure I would receive a visit from the local police. Shoot, in some neighborhoods I wouldn't even have to wear a skirt to be harassed, often times just being a man is enough. Case in point: I watched a video on you tube uploaded by an older man who recorded an incident with his cell phone where he was at a local park watching HIS grandchildren play when some goodie two-shoes uptight "soccer mom" called the police on him just for being there! (she naturally assumed that just because he was an old man at a childrens park he MUST be a pedophile!)

As an example of unfair, discriminatory profiling, it was brought to my attention last night from my wife..... as I shopped in walmart in my skirt, I apparently passed by a woman who upon seeing me grabbed her purse out of her cart, and clutched it near to her. Clearly she thought I meant trouble and was not to be trusted. Oh yes, we are profiled... more than we realize I'm sure.

Once again.... slippery slope...

[dillon]

I tend to agree with Moon for two reasons. First, prohibitions are knee-jerk reactions fueled by fear and propaganda. They have never worked; not for alcohol or gambling; they have failed for drugs; they would inevitably fail for guns and abortions, and terrorists would circumvent prohibitions in a matter of minutes.

The best defeat for terrorists of a repressive theocratic culture is to thumb our noses at their efforts and not to allow them to alter our lives. A liberal democracy should consistently err on the side of enhancing and expanding personal and civil liberty, and not contracting it; as Moon said, the end of that road is the predictable demise of all civil rights.

Needless to say, there is no love lost between me and many, if not most, Muslims. Culturally they seem to me to be stupefied automatons incapable of critical thinking, but I would say the same of virtually any religious fundamentalist, and I hold a special distrust of fundamentalist Christians, who have the benefit of societies where they should be exposed to the concepts of reason and rationality. That they operate in lieu of those virtues to me indicates either willful oblivion to reality, or gross communal mental deficiency. The obvious difference, of course, is that Christians are not strapping on suicide vests with the aim of indiscriminate slaughter.

Fundamentalists are basically abject and pathetic addicts who require constant belief reinforcement in the same way a junkie needs his fix. Either way, fundamentalists of any religion are the most obvious dupes of evil that exist, IMHO. It's a shame they cannot view themselves from outside their own context, and from afar.

Off my soapbox now...

[Judah14]

Culturally they seem to me to be stupefied automatons incapable of critical thinking

I think you are referring to their attitude towards things, as Muslims have a rich culture. In fact, my skirt wearing is based on traditional garments mostly associated with Muslims, though are worn by non-Muslim people as well in other parts of the world.

[dillon]

Culturally they seem to me to be stupefied automatons incapable of critical thinking

I think you are referring to their attitude towards things, as Muslims have a rich culture. In fact, my skirt wearing is based on traditional garments mostly associated with Muslims, though are worn by non-Muslim people as well in other parts of the world.

Perhaps so, but I do think that obedience is something valued and demanded in Muslim culture far moreso than in empirical thinking that the west teaches, and perhaps therein lies an irreconcilable culture clash. Ironically, Middle Eastern scholars, historically, gave much to the world, including our mathematics system, and much of the foundation of economics. I am not sure exactly where that train ran off the rails, but I suspect it was with the absolutism of Islamic theocracy, intellect and free thought being the diametric enemy of any and all theocracy, Muslim, Christian or Jewish. Religion does not stand well under objective scrutiny, and theocracy is the inevitable outcome of allowing religion to mix with government. A prime example was seen with the early Christians who burned the great library at Alexandria, destroying countless scholarly works and heritage records of ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. It was done in the fervor of Faith.

Skirted garmenture is always appreciated, but it was also common for western Europe until about 500 to 600 years ago, and persisted in Scotland and other parts of the Isles as daily wear until perhaps 100 to 200 years ago, when the fashion pressure to trouser ones legs took reign.

[moonshadow]

Skirted garmenture is always appreciated, but it was also common for western Europe until about 500 to 600 years ago, and persisted in Scotland and other parts of the Isles as daily wear until perhaps 100 to 200 years ago, when the fashion pressure to trouser ones legs took reign.

As I've often said on this site, there is a place for trousers, and I'll always have a few personal pairs in my closet for when the need arises. That said.... trousers are for occasions with then need.... arises, in other words, I almost exclusively wear skirts now if I think I can make it through the day not needing anything else.

One of those needs, is at work, and not just because it's mandated. Even if male skirt wearing were allowed in my current position, I'd still wear trousers, even if I had to pay for them myself. A shorter skirt wouldn't provide adequate protection from work place hazards, and a longer skirt would get in the way too much. Such as it was during the industrial revolution. Although I haven't had to do it yet, if I ever undertook a major auto repair, I'd most definitely be wearing trousers for the job. The last thing I'd want to do is get oil and grease all over one of my skirts. In fact, I've got to change a hose on my power steering pump eventually, and I plan to wear trousers for that. Some people mow grass in a skirt, and I have done it a few times myself, however between that and weed eating, personally I find trousers a bit safer when it comes to flying debris.

Still, between work and play, it would be nice to be able to have the freedom to choose without worrying about harassment. I'd really like to see a world where a man can wear whatever he wants, even if it's a "girly" skirt, or God forbid a dress, and still maintain his masculinity. I am a man, I feel like a man, and though many may disagree.... I act like a man. I'm every bit the gentleman when I wear skirts as when I'm wearing trousers. I continue to hold doors for people (men and women), especially the elderly. I still smile and wave at little children that smile at me, and above all, I try to hold my composure when I'm upset. I look for peaceful resolutions to conflicts in my life, I apologize to others when I feel I've went wrong somewhere, and I'm quick to forgive even though forgiveness may not have been sought. I take a great amount of pride in my work, and the fact that I, and I alone provide for my family with no help from the government. It brings my heart great satisfaction to see a dinner table with food on it, and watch my wife and daughter comfortable inside while it's 20 degrees F outside with the wind blowing, and to know that I provided this. I think these things, and more, are the trademark of not just a gentleman, but also that of a proper man. So what if I choose to wear a skirt now and then.... in my view... I've earned the right.

It's just too bad that so many would view me as simply another perverted sissy. How too often we fall into the trap of judging people we don't take the time to get to know. I don't know much about Muslims, I've never really sat down and talked with one. But I do know, that if the opportunity were to present itself, I'd certainly enjoy the company, and maybe even learn something about a culture that perhaps I could incorporate a little into my life. All I know is what I read in the papers.... one page speaks of the good in Islam, the reverse page is full of Islamic fear. Some say the Quran mandated that true followers of Islam either convert, or otherwise kill infidels. Maybe this is true, I really don't know. I have a copy of the Quran, but found it difficult to read. Perhaps I'll give it another go some day. But I do know this much, technically speaking, if all Christians were true to their faith, they'd probably more resemble the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church. But as we all know, 99.9% of Christians aren't that extreme. In a fair number of them are non-judgmental, and most are even peaceful. I feel like the same probably holds true for Muslims.