Big and Bashful wrote: As for dresses, do they have to have feminine lines? If somebody designed one which suited the male form and looked good then why could it not be shown? O.K. I don't think there is such a thing apart from a few very expensive german creations, I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand.
No it isn't Steve.But those things are Freestyle, not MIS. MIS is just about skirts, hence the name. Freestyle is about skirts, heels, dresses, hose, and anything else you want to take from conventional women's fashion. The article I am writing is about skirts.
This comes across as a very arrogant comment:I strongly suggest, to put an end to this argument, that you and Christopher get to work on a Freestyle article ASAP. I'm sure it will take a load off your mind, and cut this debate short as you begin to see it differently.
To ChristopherJ:ChristopherJ wrote:No it isn't Steve 1.
The article that you have written is about MEN in skirts. Totally different subject. And your own article defines MIS a being made up of freestyle and braveheart groupings.
I for one strongly object to you trying to separate the 'freestyle' element of MIS from what you seem to regard as the 'true' MIS - whatever that is. I do not believe that 'freestyle MIS' should occupy a different niche from any other style of male skirt fashion.
This comes across as a very arrogant comment:
"I am sure it will take a load off your mind".
And this:
. . cut this debate short as you begin to see it differently
Seems to be saying "when you see things MY WAY"
Merlin makes an astute observation here, that the average bloke does need some form of reassurance that he can actually wear a skirted garment without his {insert-humourous-euphemism-here} falling off. Once over the initial "hump", some things will likely follow of necessity and a desire to have the rig look good -- and that may include a number of things including, but not confined to, legwear and other practical "thingies" like bags (which have been accepted in Europe for many years now, so I don't even understand why that came up).merlin wrote:It's about 're-assurance' that blokes can wear skirts that's needed - so seeing blokes wearing skirts that resemble shorts/tr*users will surely aid their 're-education'. Yes, we on this forum have come to realise those perceived boundaries can be stretched. It's only by wearing a long skirt with 70d 'thigh-highs' (or tights, if you must), that you realise it's warmer, & far more comfortable, than tr*users, isn't it? But that concept comes after, for most blokes, the initial awkward(?) 'experiment'.
Actually, this is all OK. I think we are starting to lighten up and though there have been some passionately-felt exchanges, I think beginnings of consensus are starting to appear. I think this is one of the real values of the Cafe, i.e. a home ground for this sort of debate.Steve 1 wrote:That's a pretty good idea, B+B. I wonder if that title could be shortened though ;D
The negative feedback, although strong and loud, has come mainly from 2 people. That's 2 against 1 - odds I am more than capable of handling, without hardly getting out of bed in the morning
The trouble here is that everyone has stretched their own mind, and their own wardrobe, to a point which suits them. One person includes only skirts, another adds tights; another adds handbags and heels; another goes for lipstick, crinolines and bright pink tutus. Everything is on a sliding scale according to personal preference; and as I am the author, to begin with at least, the article is following my preference, since I am god. In my own little world!
No, really, yes, I am god. Whatever I say and think is Holy and Sacred, and I'm thinking of writing a book on it. Not sure about the title yet though...
Who? where? when? Did I miss something?...another adds handbags and heels; another goes for lipstick, crinolines and bright pink tutus.