Our Bodies, Our Voices

[Bob]

So why do I wear skirts at times? At the core, using my body to express and communicate is important to me. That is not surprising: I am not the most verbal person, so I supplement my verbal communication with a variety of non-verbal communications.

I don't often talk much about dance on this website. But dance bears a relation to fashion in that it is a way that we express ourselves through our presentation to others. The key here is that both of these human acts are non-verbal communication: trying a fashion in private is like dancing in your bedroom, or singing in the shower --- certainly things we all do, usually because we're expressing something deep about ourselves but we're not entirely sure we want others to see it. But if we only do these things in private, we're communicating with no one other than ourselves.

However, if we do them in public --- sing, dance and wear funny clothes --- then we communicate with those around us. In my experience, few people ever talk to me much about my skirt-wearing. I've found it's not because they're uncomfortable to approach me or broach the subject --- but instead, it's because the fashion I chose communicated something deep about myself that did not require any more discussion. That's right: I've been able to communicate deep things through skirt-wearing that I was not even able to verbalize until much later. That is the power of using our bodies to express ourselves. Hence, when I see an old friend in the dance studio, now showing up in pink tights (which show off your legs for better or worse) and ballet skirt (which covers immodest parts), all she has to say is "wow, your legs look really great, you can still wear pink tights" (there comes an age when one cannot).

That is also why skirt-wearing for men is accepted in practice: if we're expressing something authentic and non-creepy with our skirts, then people pick up on that. The picture seems "whole," nothing that really catches the eye as too strange. In contrast, the same (or similar) skirt could be used to make fun of or parody women, which some people think is funny --- you can find plenty of "man in a tutu" videos of this type on YouTube.

I have invested a large portion of my life to the art and profession of dance. I was always drawn to it, and have valued it as a means of expression and communication. However, like skirt-wearing, dance carries a social stigma for men. Why? Quite simple: as men, we are not supposed to use our bodies for expression or communication. Only women's bodies are (socially) supposed to be used for that purpose. Not only that --- but we've come to believe as a society that sex is the only thing that can really appropriately be expressed with our bodies. Witness that sex and women's bodies have become almost synonymous in the public sphere --- as if women's bodies provide sex for male consumption. Something here is warped.

Anyway, this underlying social stigma against expressive male bodies is the root cause of so much of what men are not "supposed" to do --- whether it's group hugs, wearing a skirt, dancing, wearing tights (while dancing or not), etc. The common element of all of these taboos is that they are physically expressive.

And what about the common misperception that men who wear skirts (or dance or raise their arms above their heads while singing) are gay? That comes from the underlying belief that sex is the only thing that can be expressed with our bodies. If we really believe that, then men who are expressing something with their bodies must be doing so for sexual reasons. It must be some kind of sexual display. They must be trying to attract someone sexually. And since we're so used to the idea of women as sexual providers and men as sexual consumers --- they must be trying to attract men. Oh, they must be gay! This reasoning actually have some logic to it, but it falls down at its premise ---- the premise that all bodily expression is about sex. Once we understand that our bodies can be used to express many things that have nothing to do with sex, we come to understand that man can dress and dance beautifully and still be a man. And women are also freed from the bondage of being sex providers 24/7.

So where does this fit in at SkirtCafe?

Fashion (and Contra Dancing), like dance, is a form of expression. It's more democratic than theatrical dance: it's something we can all participate in even without years of sweat and training. We can all choose what to wear in the morning, whether we're rich or poor, fat or skinny, young or old, male or female. And our choices speak to those around us every day.

This begs the question, of course: what are we saying with what we wear? Each piece of clothing, each ensemble, says something different. Some fashion whispers, some shouts. Some says it eloquently, other plainly. Some speaks of how we're feeling today, others of who we are. Some fashion reveals intimate secrets, other puts on a poker face. Costumes are special and fun --- they let the world know we're now pretending to be someone else. (But costumes can be constraining too: many men believe that the only way then can get "license" to express with their bodies is to put on a woman costume).

SkirtCafe has always been committed to the idea that we have a right, as me, to use our bodies in expressive ways within the realm of fashion. I would now like to see us being to talk about what we're expressing with our skirts (and other garments we choose). I'm sure that every one of us is saying something different --- and in fact, that we're saying different things with different skirts. Maybe we need a thread, "What are we EXPRESSING as we post?"

I know what I'm saying when I wear a skirt (and pink tights) in the studio: I'm saying I have worked hard to make beautiful art with my body. I have the instrument to share with those around me how I feel, through the movements I choose. I'm saying that I am fully a dancer, I require full mastery and expression of my art. I will not settle as a second-class citizen of the dance world: sharing myself with others through form and movement is too important. I am certainly saying that I'm not afraid to break convention to get what I want --- not even convention on the level of taboo. But at the same time, I'm saying that I'm happy to be me, I'm don't have to put on a costume and pretend to be someone else in order to be allowed to express with my body. Finally, I am saying that I am a human being, my feelings are valid, and my mere existence makes me worthy of respect. Dance can be so humanizing.

Enjoy the attached picture: this little boy wanted to pay with a tutu (as so many boys do before they're warned of dire consequences if they act on that desire) --- while still playing with his Hotweels truck. As they say, boys will be boys. This picture says so much about who we are (or were) as boys, and what boys can do!

[Uncle Al]

Bob,

Well said and quite eloquent at that

It's good to 'read' your voice again. You've been
away (or lurking in the shadows) to long.

I hope you've had a great year, and that the new year
will bring happiness and success to you and your family.

BTW - How's the 'little one' doing

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Since1982]

Is that beautiful little boy you, Bob? I hope the parents didn't tell him about dire consequences. My dad would spank me every time he caught me in a dress or skirt my mom had put me in. Talk about being mixed up mentally. I was. I loved the soft feel of the skirt or dress but really disliked the "whack" in the face every time dad saw me in one. Happily Mom and Dad came to an understanding. Outside, I looked like he wanted me to, Inside, she was in charge of my looks. By age 11 tho, I was in trousers all the time or school would have dismissed me. That became my life until 1972 when I "discovered" sarongs in Majuro. And I've never looked back.

[Kris]

A great post, Bob. It gives me lots to think about. It's a pleasure to read a well thought out and well written article like this.

Kris

[Sarongman]

Yes, thank you Bob. I didn't read it the first time round as, usually, posts this long are turgid, rambling and rather annoying-(not mentioning any names). The subsequent responses were so positive that I read it 2nd time round and was, well, impressed with the sound REASONING and loved the photo of kid in tutu. Actually when I think Tutu I think Archbishop Desmond Ret'd!

[crfriend]

Yes, thank you Bob. I didn't read it the first time round[...]

Yes, indeed, thanks!

Bob's delightful post put my brain to thinking about the matter -- especially that notion of, "What am I trying to say" -- and, to be honest, haven't come up with anything really cogent. The best I've come up with is, "I'm a bit different; I don't fall into any of the prescribed neat little boxes (or any of the proscribed ones, for that matter); and I find that I actually like to stick out a little bit in a world that's suffocating in blandness." The looks I gravitate toward are ones primarily inspired by my "menswear look" except that I've (successfully, I hope) been able to change out trousers for skirts and still look presentable.

The main change I have found is that I now care more about how I look (because I know I'm going to get looked at) and that I'm more open to play with colours and styles. Why bother paying attention when one won't be seen for the camouflage one is wearing? This does exact a price, however; as things get worse financially (for everybody) I worry more about that, and perhaps want to stand out a bit less. As the proverb goes, "The squeaky wheel is the first to get replaced", so one always has it in the back of his head whether his employer might toss him because he's not "conformant enough".

[... U]sually, posts this long are turgid, rambling and rather annoying-(not mentioning any names).

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[geegee]

Very well articulted. I don't know if you have heard of or seen a film called "Dress Code" or sometimes known by the title "Bruno". It is the story of a young boy who expresses his individuality by wearing dresses, directed by Shirley Mclaine and it makes many of the same points you have made in this post. I have known about the film for a long time, but only just been able to see it, as it has been posted on Utube in 12 x 10 minute episodes by an excellent contributor called Kidaussie. Well worth searching out and watching.

[Since1982]

I bought "Bruno" about 7 years ago after seeing a chopped up version of it on the Logo channel. I bought it on Amazon, got a used copy for $2.00 + s&h, total of $5.25 to my house. Excellent movie. Kathy Bates was great as the Mother Superior and Gary Sinese was good as the "dad". Of course Shirley Mc Laine stole the entire show, followed closely by the little black girl who I don't remember the name of who came up with the original suggestion, "want to switch clothes?" with Bruno. To the children, who'd not been indoctrinated with pink and blue and MEN wear pants and WOMEN wear skirts, all of this was just perfectly normal. Great movie.

[SkirtDude]

Deleted.

[Uncle Al]

....
In a related vein I was recently reading through the class list at a nearby
community center and my eyes were drawn to the beginner belly dance class .
I am quite tempted to sign up on the theory that I have nothing to lose but $45 and 16 hours of time in class . I just hope that women in the class will be accepting of a very furry and slightly paunchy man in their midst.

And if you're lucky, a few extra pounds will melt away...
When my wife and I were dancing, in our younger years, we were
able to maintain a decent weight. Now I wave at 'the number' as
it goes by on the scale

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[JRMILLER]

Thanks Bob for your article, it's pretty clear that your reasons are really "your own" and you are not showing off or trying to impress anyone.

I have questioned my motivations constantly for the past year or so and tried on and tossed out several notions. The tossed out notions all had to do with what image I was trying to project or what I was trying to say to someone else. I finally realized that it didn't matter, my reasons are my own. My attempts to convey an image to other people by wearing skirt come out as confused and distorted for all the reasons enumerated in this thread and others like it.

Skirting for a guy just isn't as clear cut as wearing a tux. A tux conveys a fairly consistent and uniform message, a look of male elegance, ready for a night at the opera or a night ballroom dancing.

A guys in a skirt conveys confusion, what is he really trying to say? People don't "get it" no matter how hard we try.

Thus, for me the bottom line is that it is foolish to try to convey anything to anyone. If there is personal pleasure to be derived by wearing skirt (or anything for that matter), it ultimately only matters to the wearer.

My parents used to tell me it didn't matter what other people thought of me or how I dressed, I am siding with them - they were right. However, had I shown up in a skirt in their home, they might have changed their tune!

[AMM]

I guess I don't think of myself as "expressing" something when I wear skirts. I think of it more as "being myself." Or maybe "becoming myself."

Actually, when I think about it, there are sort of two parts to what I'm doing. First of all, I just like wearing skirts, etc. I make something or (less often) I buy it and it just feels good. Or I see something that I want to turn into something to wear, it may take me six months or two years, but I make it, and I like the way it swings, or the way it rustles, or the color, or how it brushes my body, or where it's tight and where it's loose, and maybe the places where it feels like there's nothing there (the "naked from the waist down" feeling.

Next, I try wearing it and looking in the mirror at myself. Half the time, there's an intense shock: who is that? Can I imagine people seeing me looking like that? Or will I die of embarrasment at having my "parts" seen? I'm so used to the idea (fantasy, really) that people can't see me, or that they can only see my carefully carved persona. The idea of revealing anything feels like taking my clothes off on stage or something.

So the second part is the process of re-envisioning myself as someone who would wear this new thing. And adjusting the other pieces of me so I look a little more like a coherent whole. Someone who is still me, just a little different.

I've always thought of the "self" -- the person you think "you" are -- as something we construct as we grow up. We start out as a grab-bag of personality characteristics, urges, likes and dislikes, ways of reacting, and during our formative years, we reject some pieces and fit the rest together in some sort of pattern which we think of as the "real" us. Sometimes we reject too much, or reject things that are too fundamental to our nature, and we spend our lives half-crazy. If we're lucky, at some point our lives fall apart and we are forced to take advantage of the opportunity to put ourselves together again in a different way, maybe finding a place for more of those ostracized pieces than before. And some brave souls do it over and over again.

It feels like the skirt-wearing is part of that sort of process for me. It represents (is a proxy for?) some parts of me that I learned to reject and repress at a very early age, which left me feeling like half a man.

When I see the picture of the little boy in the tutu with the truck, it looks like he hasn't yet been forced to reject parts of himself. Like childhood friends before the day when one of them will get sent away forever -- deported or sent to an internment camp or something like that.

One thing in Bob's post struck me, though, especially thinking of the little boy:

...Once we understand that our bodies can be used to express many things that have nothing to do with sex...

People keep talking as if there's "stuff that has to do with sex" on one side and "stuff that has nothing do with sex" on the other side. Here at SkirtCafe, I get the feeling that a lot of people want to put their skirt-wearing in the "stuff that has nothing to do with sex" category. But I think the whole distinction is artificial.

When I see small children, there's a kind of "life" or "life energy" in them that is as much sexual as it is anything else. By that I mean that it's the same energy and impulse that will later be expressed in, among other things, what we usually mean by "sex." To talk about "sexual energy" (or "sex drive") and "creativity" and "curiosity" and "executive function" and "playfulness" and even "flirtatiousness" as if they were separate things is sort of like talking about the North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean Sea as if they were isolated bodies of water. It's really the same water in all three, it's just a question of where this gallon of water is and where it's been recently. It's only when you get older that you get brainwashed into thinking that they have nothing to do with one another and you can suppress one without affecting the others.

Good artists know that their art and their creativity come from the same place as their sexuality. For instance, don't a lot of modern dancers talk about their dance "coming from the groin?"

So when I dance, or wear a skirt, it is about sex and about my sexuality. It's just not about it in the ridiculously facile and oversimplified way that people sometimes imagine.

[Skirt Chaser]

Bob, this is such a beautiful post you have written. While the skirt angle can not be summarized better than the smile on the child's face, your words gave me a much better understanding of dance. As someone with no feeling of kinesthetic artistry this description of what dance does for you and others put it in terms I could understand and I thank you for it.

[Sasquatch]

I guess I don't think of myself as "expressing" something when I wear skirts. I think of it more as "being myself." Or maybe "becoming myself."

It feels like the skirt-wearing is part of that sort of process for me. It represents (is a proxy for?) some parts of me that I learned to reject and repress at a very early age.

People keep talking as if there's "stuff that has to do with sex" on one side and "stuff that has nothing do with sex" on the other side. Here at SkirtCafe, I get the feeling that a lot of people want to put their skirt-wearing in the "stuff that has nothing to do with sex" category. But I think the whole distinction is artificial.

To talk about "sexual energy" (or "sex drive") and "creativity" and "curiosity" and "executive function" and "playfulness" and even "flirtatiousness" as if they were separate things is sort of like talking about the North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribean Sea as if they were isolated bodies of water. It's really the same water in all three, it's just a question of where this gallon of water is and where it's been recently. It's only when you get older that you get brainwashed into thinking that they have nothing to do with one another and you can suppress one without affecting the others.

Good artists know that their art and their creativity come from the same place as their sexuality. For instance, don't a lot of modern dancers talk about their dance "coming from the groin?"

So when I dance, or wear a skirt, it is about sex and about my sexuality. It's just not about it in the ridiculously facile and oversimplified way that people sometimes imagine.

I can relate to these ideas, AMM. Sexuality is but one facet of what makes a person; yet it is inseparable from all the rest. Though I have not been reticent to admit this, I do tend to let the idea languish in the shadows. You have expressed it very well, and I hope the thread will continue without the controversey that usually follows any mention of this theme.
Sasq

[Departed Member]

I guess I don't think of myself as "expressing" something when I wear skirts. I think of it more as "being myself." ..... People keep talking as if there's "stuff that has to do with sex" on one side and "stuff that has nothing do with sex" on the other side. Here at SkirtCafe, I get the feeling that a lot of people want to put their skirt-wearing in the "stuff that has nothing to do with sex" category. But I think the whole distinction is artificial.

It rather bothers me, or could do, should I say, that I might be seen as expressing, well, anything by wearing a skirt rather than tr*users. The only feeling that is very different is that of being physically far more comfortable. If that then makes me mentally more comfortable, then that is merely a bonus. I would feel very uncomfortable, psychologically, if anyone suggested to me face to face that I was, indeed, attempting to "express" anything by doing so. My wife's best friend claims I look more 'macho' (ouch!) in Kilt or skirt, but then says I've got fabulous legs! So, is there a 'sexual' thing about skirt-wearing? I'm certainly not aware of such feelings in myself. I may appear more self assured, more self confident, but that's purely down to the not inconsiderable reduction in pain in the groin area, rather than any other sensations in that department!