One woman's reaction to a MIS

[iain]

I think we're taking all this a bit far. A guy in a skirt seems to be making a radical statement and we know the human race is a trifle backwards, to say the least! Many people react in an animal way, more or less. They don't have self control and are not encouraged to have any, so give them a few drinks and you really are on your own.

Probably this woman had had a few and was relaxed and her judgement was not as it would have been in an office or a train where they see the "normal" rules applying. Everyone wants a place where the context changes and instinctive behaviour can be expressed, hence there are some places you feel more comfortable in a skirt and some where you feel out of place.

But I'm sure she would have listened to reason.. she liked you anyway.

Women ARE more aggressive than men, emotionally, especially at a party and after drinks, and you're not going to change the behaviour of a whole planet by waving a few rules in the air on a typewritten piece of paper. You live in this world at your own risk--get used to it!

Shields up! Ready for flamers!

[knickerless]

I am a little confused over your use of the word pants. I know some people in other countries use the word pants (underwear) when they really mean trousers. Are you saying the woman thought you had trousers on under the skirt or was she trying to see your pants (underwear). Similarly when she said she had no pants on - did she mean she was not wearing trousers under her skirt or did she mean she had no knickers on. Either way I she was trying to give you the hint that she was up for it.

Nick

[Skirt Chaser]

Aww, that's horrible! How could something such as that show your level of maturity (or lack thereof)? Pants and shorts by themselves don't cause people to think of you as immature, and neither do skirts alone, but if you combine them you're suddenly pegged as 'immature?'

I'm supposed to be making dinner rignt now and will pop back in later in the week to get in my thoughts on the rude woman (was she senile?) but just wanted to explain the preschool comment which I agree with. Kids in dresses need something more than underpants so they can hang upside down on the monkey bars at recess among other things. Fewer adults in dresses have the same activity level or need to sit cross legged on the floor for storytime. Of course I don't have those reasons for wearing a skirt over my pants today, I just like the look. :rolleyes:

Quiet Mouse

[Since1982]

I'm with you on that Sas, Rudeness is rudeness no matter what sex is doing it. No doubt a man pulling a strange woman's skirt down in public would get him a quick trip to the local constabulatory. No reason a woman doing the same thing shouldn't get the same quick trip.

[kiltair]

A woman pulling up a men's skirt is showing some playful curiosity, vice-versa it's considered sign of a sick mind. I fear it'll stay this way until men-in-skirts will be much more common in the street.
When walking in a kilt, people seem to have the irresistible urge to ask what's underneath... both men and women, but it's always women who try to have a peep underneath.

Jan

[AMM]

A few thoughts at this point:

1. I'm inclined to go with Iain's point of view: this was something between heaving flirting and a "pass." Exaggerated flirting during the dance is a part of the American Contra scene (encouraged by callers saying things like "give your partner that 'come hither look'"), she may just have been taking the idea further than most people would. Try going to a Contra dance at, say, the "shining star grange" in Greenfield, MA (USA) if you want to see how rowdy (and physical) a bunch of dancers can get.

2. I don't think alcohol had anything to do with it. In the US, at least, people don't generally mix this sort of dancing with alcohol, perhaps for the same reason people don't combine drinking with running or hiking: alcohol doesn't go well with vigorous physical exercise. (Also, most Contra and folk dancing is done in places that forbid drinking -- church halls, schools, etc.)

3. The talk of "trips to the local constabulary" are a little overheated. Keep in mind, this is a group of people who pretty much know one another. In this case, if I had turned around and yanked at this woman's skirt once or twice, I think most everyone there would have treated it as something she'd asked for. Even if I did it to someone without provocation, if I were prepared to stop if I got a negative response, it wouldn't go any further. The police would be called only as a last resort, after a number of other measures had failed.

4. The talk of "why is it OK for women but not for men" ignores the fact that women are much more subject to sexual assault than men are. For instance, if I were alone with this woman, there is a good chance that I could "have my way with her", if I were determined enough, regardless of her wishes, whereas there's no way she could do the same to me. Most women I know have had experiences with guys who wouldn't take "no" for an answer, to the point that they felt threatened.

I still feel at a loss for good ways to handle -- let's call them "intrusive" -- comments or actions in a way that leaves me in control of the situation and doesn't make a bigger deal of them than they really are. I'm not trying to drive people like that away, since they're likely to be people I will be dealing with on a regular basis and may even want to be friends with. I'd just like to be able to respond in a way that makes me feel like an equal partner.

My initial reaction (and the response of most of the people here) -- to get offended -- doesn't get me where I want to go. After all, even in Contra circles, most people don't have a lot of experience with men in skirts, and it's not like there are any generally accepted rules of what's OK to do with men in skirts. (I mean, if I were to go out on the street wearing a tomato costume, I could expect some odd questions.) It's not like these people are irredeemable social incompetents. It's just that, since we're doing the unusual stuff, we need to take responsibility for helping other people interact with us in a way that makes us all comfortable.

Also, I notice that women tend to be more comfortable with kinds of contact with other women that I'm used to thinking of as intrusive. I remember one time when a woman pulled up the hem of my skirt to see what was under it. I was upset by it, but later realized I've seen women do this to each other, in asking about details of how a dancing skirt was constructed. She was just treating me the way she would treat a woman wearing what I was wearing.


-- AMM

[AMM]

...
Kids in dresses need something more than underpants so they can hang upside down on the monkey bars at recess among other things. Fewer adults in dresses have the same activity level or need to sit cross legged on the floor for storytime.
...
Quiet Mouse

When I was growing up, little girls (at school) wore dresses and skirts, not over pants (dress code and all), and they sat cross-legged and swung on the swing and some climbed trees and swung on the monkey bars. And sometimes you could see their underpants. And maybe some kid would sing "I see London, I see France", or not. And maybe some adult would say, in a stuffy tone of voice, "young ladies don't...." And maybe other adults would say, "ah, she's just a little girl." And that was all there was to it.

Now it seems, little girls have to wear trousers under their skirts, so people's inner child molester won't see something that makes them lose control, or something.

Every now and then something happens to remind me of those times: a woman in a skirt sits cross-legged and inadvertantly shows, for just a moment as she's adjusting herself, more than is considered proper. A friend wearing a dress is climbing a ladder. Someone changing into a bathing suit behind a bush. Nothing planned, nothing intentional on either side, nothing said because there's nothing to say, you just go on doing whatever you were doing. Just a moment of enjoying the presence of the opposite sex without the baggage of what's OK, what's appropriate, who's abusing whom. It's like finding a quarter [$0.25] on the sidewalk, with no sign of who might have dropped it.

People talk about these times being more liberated than the 1950's, but in some ways, I think folks are more prudish.

-- AMM

[Sashi]

When I was growing up, little girls (at school) wore dresses and skirts, not over pants (dress code and all), and they sat cross-legged and swung on the swing and some climbed trees and swung on the monkey bars. And sometimes you could see their underpants. And maybe some kid would sing "I see London, I see France", or not. And maybe some adult would say, in a stuffy tone of voice, "young ladies don't...." And maybe other adults would say, "ah, she's just a little girl." And that was all there was to it.

Well I can't say how often I saw girls wearing dresses and skirts at school when I was younger, as my memories are quite fuzzy, but all of that basically rings a symphony of bells in my head. I can't even remember the last time I heard someone singing, "I see London, I see France." *sigh* I miss the days of ignorant youth, where your biggest worry was not finishing that night's homework assignment or not being able to play with a friend that day. Anymore there just seems to be so much more to worry about, both personal and of the human race in general.

Now it seems, little girls have to wear trousers under their skirts, so people's inner child molester won't see something that makes them lose control, or something.

If people out there truly believe that, then they are pretty much insane. Contrary to popular opinion, most sex crimes related to children occur within the family. While it gets more media attention that some 30 year old man with a skin condition who lives in his mother's basement went after a child, it's far more likely that a cousin or uncle living with the family would be the perpetrator. Even daddy dearest is a more likely suspect than Joe Blo down the street. Of course, this could be wrong to some degree or another. It's just something I've managed to pick up among my widely varied stretches of researching stuff. Heh, I should get a doctorate in that: Dr. Sashi (not my real name), Researcher of Stuff™

People talk about these times being more liberated than the 1950's, but in some ways, I think folks are more prudish.

Well I haven't been around for nearly as long as a lot of the members here, so I'll just have to take your word for it there!

...but just wanted to explain the preschool comment which I agree with. Kids in dresses need something more than underpants so they can hang upside down on the monkey bars at recess among other things. Fewer adults in dresses have the same activity level or need to sit cross legged on the floor for storytime. Of course I don't have those reasons for wearing a skirt over my pants today, I just like the look. :rolleyes:

Quiet Mouse

I can see your point there, from an adult's perpsective, but from a kid's perspective I see things differently. Little kids are usually far less concerned with flashing someone while on the monkey bars than their parents are. If a little kid inadvertantly shows of his or her underwear, any kids around will usually laugh about it a little, maybe jest about it some, and then let it go. Usually the kid who did the flashing will be a little embarressed, but will either quickly forget about it or laugh it off and continue playing. At least that's how I see it, based on memories from childhood among other things. So while the adult is nearly having a heart attack over it, the child is far more at ease unless some bully happens to be around and pushes things too far.

True, fewer adults do have the same activity level as children to where they would have to be worried about accidentally flashing any nearby people. Even if I did have the activity level to warrent wearing pants or shorts underneath a skirt, just in the off chance that I might flash someone, I probably wouldn't. If you are going out in a skirt, you have the chance no matter what you do of flashing someone, so you just got to except that as fact and so should everyone around you. No point in going out of your way just so you don't bother the small percentage of people who would be get severaly offended if they caught a look at your underwear for a second or two.

Of course, I do like the look for asthetic reasons, at least with my limited exposure to it. Anyways, that's just my perspective on things here, and as such is only opinion. Well, I'm off for now. I need to get some other things done before dinner :ninjajig:

[iain]

I think AMM makes a valid point: women feel very free with each other in terms of praise and of forthright comments. So if you go in a skirt, some of the barrier (which trousers and suits perpetuate) between you and her is already broken--by you.

So sometimes they react without knowing why, or without thinking about it. For example, at a gallery once, I wore a kilt and a woman just came up and started talking to me, and we walked round together. There was none of the formality, no introductions, nothing. All that normal barrier stuff was gone.

I think women do react without thinking, and unless it's really aggressive stuff, why shouldn't you expect it? I've seen women flip each other's skirts at parties for a laugh.

You can't have it both ways: either you dress as a traditional man and keep the walls up, or adopt a free approach to fashion as women have done, and take the bad with the good. Expect praise sometimes but be prepared for criticism, too: about matching colours, styles, shoes, the lot. Nothing worthwhile is going to be completely free!

[Since1982]

But, I've lived 65 years without EVER seeing a woman in public pull down another woman's skirt to see what she might be wearing underneath. A polite PERSON if so intrigued as to care, would simply ASK!

[iain]

You're right! I guess we all know, even just from reading the newspapers, that everyone in this world is always polite and helpful and courteous at all times. And even more so, after they've had a few drinks! I think that's what I like the most about people on this planet.

[Since1982]

I didn't say or infer that everyone was polite. I personally see no reason to turn the "other" cheek. IF someone is impolite to me, they get it in kind. The first person of any sex, (I've never had the embarrassment of a stranger pulling my skirt down for any reason) that feels the need to touch me in any inapropriate way will get the full attention of my wrath.

[iain]

Yes, yes, of course.. wrath away! But what I meant is that not everyone is polite, not everyone is courteous, not everyone has manners. So if you are a guy wearing a skirt at a social event where women have been drinking, you do so at your own risk.

Women have the defense that a playful man doing the same could be mistaken for an aggressor, which is why laws have been put in place for it.

Playful women aren't likely to be seen as aggressors and most men's wear hasn't given them such an opportunity in the last 100 years. It's such a tedious cliche, "what are you wearing under the kilt" that surely we have to expect it sometimes, and not fall to pieces on the rare occasions it gets a little out of hand. There can't be many women who would actually do that, but in this case, she seemed to be making a pass anyway! So make of it what you will.

[skirts4me]

My immediate reaction to the description of what happened was to say to the woman concerned something akin to "If you want to know what I've got on underneath there's a time and a place, and it's not here or now. Let's talk at the break." That should defuse the situation, and let you be in control, later, of how much you tell/show - and it gives you the chance to find out her intentions more clearly.

[iain]

Oh, marry the woman and have done with it!! You could do a lot worse, actually..