Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
crfriend wrote:That's the biggest reason I don't wear my minis out in public save for around the neighbourhood where everybody knows me -- the worry that I'll face spurious (and indefensible) charges made by a troublemaker. That's a sad commentary, and probably one tinged with a bit of paranoia, but the stakes are just too high here in the 'States to get accused of anything when it comes to the under-18 set.
Well that's a silly, and ignorant, comment, but to be expected I suppose. Ignorance is easily overcome; stupidity isn't. The lads need a history lesson. Their father probably wore shorts like yours when he was their age.
As far as what passes for "shorts" these days, I'd rather wear a skirt; in fact, with the way that modern "shorts" are evolving (with wide legs and a droopy crotch), a skirt is merely the ultimate expression of the form. I remember explaining that to a couple of surfer-types when I was in Florida last year -- who then actually "got it" and agreed. I wonder if either of them tried the notion out for themselves.
That would have made me very nervous depending on the age of the girl in question.
I was at Home Depot last year one day in my kilt and a couple of shoppers (husband and wife) came up to me and asked me where they could find a certain item. I couldn’t believe they thought I was one of the employees but maybe that shows a growing acceptance.
Lar
All this talk of 'stop & search', reminds me of the time our elder son & his mate (who's Chinese) were stopped, en route to Lincoln in the early hours of one morning. The first copper out of the car started to racially abuse his mate, swearing (the "F" word) and accusing him of being 'drunk' because he was driving at a constant 59mph (on a 60mph road). My lad (who had got out of the car immediately it stopped) grabbed the PC in an armlock, snatched his 'cuffs & cuffed him, before the second PC had got out of his seat! He then insisted on being escorted to the nearest police station where they forced the desk-seargent to call out a police inspector. Some two hours later, they had both (separately) made formal statements. The sh*t hit the fan, big style, as the PC tried to bring charges against my son for 'false arrest'. Unfortunately, he'd not bargained for the fact that my son was serving in the British military and that it came to light that he (the PC)was on a 'second warning' for racial abuse. The police federation withdrew all support and he was heavily fined, dismissed the service, losing his pension rights and everything, into the bargain.
I take it this sort of thing probably wouldn't happen in the USA?????
Since1982 wrote:Just wearing underpants without outer clothing in public can get you arrested, bulge or no bulge. The charge is "indecent exposure". The bulge is actually immaterial. However, a woman, wearing what used to be only considered "underwear" (a petticoat) with no skirt over it is just considered "trendy" and is commonly seen and worn at Modern dance clubs. There's that "Different standards" thing again. :shake:
When I worked at the hospital a girl came in wearing a completely see-through blouse and no bra. I asked my boss, who was an ex-cop if we should call the police and have her arrested for indecent exposure. He said as long as she’s covered she’s legal.
There was also an incident in Greenfield Park in Milwaukee where a woman was sunbathing topless. That’s no problem but she was on her back. She was arrested for indecent exposure because her nipples were showing. When they went to court, her attorney argued that she was made in the image of the creator; therefore if the court finds her indecent, then they are also finding the creator indecent. The judge didn’t want to touch that for anything so he threw out the case. Ever since then they quit arresting people on an indecent charge for nudity. They started charging them with disorderly conduct.
I spent a lot of my time on the beach in my underwear. You could hardly tell the difference between them and swimming trunks except mine were smaller. I’ve never been arrested or even talked to by the police.
I spent my weekends with my kids at the unofficial and illegal clothes optional beach (Paradise Beach) on the Shorewood-Milwaukee border line. A number of my friends were arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior while on the beach because they couldn’t arrest them for disorderly conduct or indecent exposure. The charges were thrown out of court because when they were arrested they were just standing by the water talking. This didn’t constitute lewdness or lasciviousness.
Lar
AMM wrote:
Also, when a police officer walks up to a car during a traffic stop, he has no idea who is in the car or how he will react. Sometimes, the motorist just panics and drives off as fast as the car will go, and next day you read in the newspaper about the damage he caused.
And occasionally the motorist will shoot the officer. The officer opens his mouth to say, "can I see your license?" and gets a bullet instead. Not very often, but it only has to happen to you once.
Traffic stops are high-anxiety encounters for police officers, and it pays not to make them any more anxious.
-- AMM
That’s why they’ve changed the procedure for how an officer approaches a vehicle he’s stopped. Now they will usually stand behind the driver’s window with one hand on their weapon depending on the circumstances.
Lar
I saw a film on Cops Gone Wild where a "suspect" was running into the woods with a plainclothes cop right on his tail. Finally the cop shot at him, missed but the suspect stopped and put his arms in the air. The cop ran up slammed the guy to the ground and started beating on him with his gun after he had cuffed him. Then the cop stood up and kicked the suspect a few times before looking up and noticing the news helicopter above and out of hearing range filming the whole incident. When THAT can of feces hit the fan, the cop was fired and lost his pension also. So it does happen here, but only if caught on tape does it get prosecuted. The cops get away with it most of the time when a "suspect" says he was beaten, even if he has cuts etc. on him because according to US law, the "Officer" has no reason to lie, so the suspect "MUST" be lying. On that same show, there was another officer that was fired for choking and pistolwhipping a suspect prior to arrest. That was filmed by a neighbor of the "suspect" that was wondering why the cops even stopped the man. Turned out he hadn't done anything other than being in the wrong place at the right time, and being black. The cop used a lot of N words while beating him. About 5% of bad vicious cops actually get caught in the act. Most are too smart to be seen or what they do is actually part of their training. Whew...I'm turning into an agoraphobic and stay in my house nearly all the time at night.
I had to remove this signature as it was being used on Twitter. This is my OPINION, you NEEDN'T AGREE.
Story of Life, Perspire, Expire, Funeral Pyre!I've been skirted part time since 1972 and full time since 2005. http://skirts4men.myfreeforum.org/
Since1982 wrote:I saw a film on Cops Gone Wild where a "suspect" was running into the woods with a plainclothes cop right on his tail. Finally the cop shot at him, missed but the suspect stopped and put his arms in the air. The cop ran up slammed the guy to the ground and started beating on him with his gun after he had cuffed him. Then the cop stood up and kicked the suspect a few times before looking up and noticing the news helicopter above and out of hearing range filming the whole incident. When THAT can of feces hit the fan, the cop was fired and lost his pension also. So it does happen here, but only if caught on tape does it get prosecuted. The cops get away with it most of the time when a "suspect" says he was beaten, even if he has cuts etc. on him because according to US law, the "Officer" has no reason to lie, so the suspect "MUST" be lying. On that same show, there was another officer that was fired for choking and pistolwhipping a suspect prior to arrest. That was filmed by a neighbor of the "suspect" that was wondering why the cops even stopped the man. Turned out he hadn't done anything other than being in the wrong place at the right time, and being black. The cop used a lot of N words while beating him. About 5% of bad vicious cops actually get caught in the act. Most are too smart to be seen or what they do is actually part of their training. Whew...I'm turning into an agoraphobic and stay in my house nearly all the time at night.
Where did you get those statistics, Skip? I would like to look it up. If only 5% of bad cops get caught how many bad cops are there? How many is 5% and what part of the country is this?
Lar
merlin wrote:I take it this sort of thing probably wouldn't happen in the USA?????
What your lad did in that situation would quite probably get him several .40 calibre (or larger) hollow-points here in the 'States. The current wisdom is to, when "pulled over" on a "routine traffic stop" is to put your hands on the windscreen (the steering-wheel isn't good enough) and wait for the cop to approach; any sudden movement (even a sneeze) is likely to set off a tragic chain of events.
Since the police in the US police the police, there's usually no recourse unless the victim is (1) from a wealthy family and is (2) very well connected. From a purely practical standpoint, there are no "checks and balances" here. Increasingly, there have been calls for "civilian" (Don't get me started on that!) oversight boards, but those are roundly opposed by the various police organisations we have.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
That percentage was given by the narrator on the "Cops Gone Wild" show. I suppose that's the percentage of incidents that have been caught on newstape and exposed. Incidents "heard" about can't be proven so therefore can only be "assumed" to exist by word of mouth, I suppose that's where the narrators other 95% was. I would assume that the various Police Organizations must really hate that show and are probably trying to figure out some way to keep it off the air. Realistically, I'm not surprised that the show only comes on in the wee hours of the morning IF someone is awake to watch it...I suffer from insomnia and see lots of cop shows late at night. As I've said before, I'd gladly send a DVD to anyone that wants to re-imburse me the shipping filled with cops acting like stormtroopers all over the USA, not just in NY or Las Vegas or Los Angeles or Boston. I accept Paypal and as soon as the Shipping costs are in my paypal account the DVD goes out.
:whiteflag :bouncy:
I had to remove this signature as it was being used on Twitter. This is my OPINION, you NEEDN'T AGREE.
Story of Life, Perspire, Expire, Funeral Pyre!I've been skirted part time since 1972 and full time since 2005. http://skirts4men.myfreeforum.org/
Bravehearts.us wrote:Where are you getting your information from Skip? Where is this a fact? The only place in the country that had a turgid law was Kenosha, Wisconsin. When it went into effect, it made it a criminal offense to get an erection in public and a man could be arrested for an erection even though he was fully clothed. They got the law passed in an attempt to get rid of the Adult stores alone a strip of I-94 in their county. Needless to say the police chief and the mayor (who got the law passed) were laughing stocks when word got out about this law. I can’t imagine any cop who would jump at the chance to embarrass himself by arresting someone for having an erection? On top of that, it’s a natural body function. It’s not something you can control. I could just see the guy in court talking to the judge. “Well, you see your honor, MAM, I started to feel it getting bigger and I said NO but I guess sometimes no does mean yes.” LOL
As far as getting arrested for a lump in your pants or underwear…what about swimming trunks, running shorts, bike shorts, running tights, etc.? These pictures are two pairs of running/bike tights that are outerwear. If a person could be arrested for wearing them I would have been gone a long time ago because I wear them a lot to the stores.
Lar
Milfmog wrote:Way back at the end of June Skip wrote
Someone please tell me this is paranoia, surely it can't be for real? What about a guy in speedos?
Ian.
Actually, there are a few other places that had it, Clearwater, Florida, the whole states of Indiana and South Carolina and Akron, Ohio (HEY! thats where I live!)
As for exposed underwear, it's legal, I can't find the reference to it at the moment, but a judge somewhere did rule that wearing underwear in public is not indecent.
Steven
People should fear the people that fear me - "The Fifth Edge"
On "Girls gone wild, Mardi Gras" a subtitle for Cops shows that were filmed before Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the City Police told a lot of people and arrested some for either a girl showing whats under her top or a guy unzipping his pants and showing his underwear with a bulge in it or pulling out his member. But the Cops didn't HAVE to see flesh, just jockey briefs with a bulge was enough to get you arrested. Honest to GOD, I have it recorded on my DVD recorder hard drive. You have to remember, this is the United States and we still HAVE puritan minded people here. The English got rid of the Puritans, they shipped them all to America...Dad burn it. :shake: :whiteflag WE STILL HAVE THE BIBLE BELT! It runs from lake Michigan on the east to the Nevada state line on the west, Gulf of Mexico on the south to parts of Canada in the North. That includes Nawleens. :rolleyes:
I had to remove this signature as it was being used on Twitter. This is my OPINION, you NEEDN'T AGREE.
Story of Life, Perspire, Expire, Funeral Pyre!I've been skirted part time since 1972 and full time since 2005. http://skirts4men.myfreeforum.org/
Stu wrote:AaronHaving said that, I share the concerns that Americans have about their country losing long-cherished freedoms and liberties, and that the government is monitoring and seeking to control the movements of its citizens. We are going in the same direction here, and I find it very alarming - so alarming that I plan to emigrate in 22 months!!
Since1982 wrote:On "Girls gone wild, Mardi Gras" a subtitle for Cops shows that were filmed before Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the City Police told a lot of people and arrested some for either a girl showing whats under her top or a guy unzipping his pants and showing his underwear with a bulge in it or pulling out his member. But the Cops didn't HAVE to see flesh, just jockey briefs with a bulge was enough to get you arrested. Honest to GOD, I have it recorded on my DVD recorder hard drive.
Thats different then what they showed on the COPS TV show the one day, they didn't care about the females exposing their breasts (unless they did it so much to cause a problem) and didn't care about the guy who unzipped his pants until he showed some flesh. And thats what they said if I recall correctly "if he shows it" Obviously it is not applied equaly.
As much as some people would like to think that a female breast is a sexual object, it is not.
Steven
People should fear the people that fear me - "The Fifth Edge"
Well, I think that's an extreme exception, deliberately exposing things to get attention, so enacted in New Orleans as to avoid trouble in the streets during Mardi Gras. If you expose underwear, most likely your intent is to go all the way, and thus the "law". Doesn't mean that the rest of the time you can't briefly show underwear there, or anywhere else, if it's unintentional.
