Can We Stop The Squabbling Please!

[crfriend]

I'm minded to think that this debate is getting un-necessarily drawn into a 'braveheart'/'freestyler' argument, rather than the real issues at stake. We all seem to accept that the ultimate in 'braveheart' terms is a trad Kilt - agreed? The problems, and outright animosity, stem from the 'other' difficult-to-define boundary - that between 'freestyler' and 'crossdresser'.

That may be the case, especially in light of some recent events, but still doesn't address what I sense as a still-simmering visceral case of animosity of the "braveheart" camp. Some of that is well pointed up in the previously-linked essay by WDP.

If the definition is shifted from "braveheart vs. freestyle" (Spy vs. Spy, anybody) to "freestyle vs. crossdresser" then it becomes both more palatable to the general populace here and more relevant to the perceptions of the public at large. Clearly, a "hard clip" can be set at the "intent to 'pass'"; another, slightly more difficult one, could be set at "masquerading" without intent (I use the term "role play" to describe such behaviours).

[A kilt is] quite a difficult garment to wear, and be slovenly in, to be honest!

How about worn with a torn sweat-stained singlet ("vest", UK usage; "wife-beater", US usage) and ratty sneakers/trainers? One gets that look all the time with jeans, and, personally, I find it just awful. I don't see a kilt improving the image much.

Well, perhaps I should say, "creating boundaries", then? I was trying to emphasise that the conflict is not 'braveheart/freestyler' inspired, but 'freestyler'/'crossdresser'.

Well, there's clearly the perception that such a boundary exists: we just don't have a proper definition -- or even arguing point -- about where it is, and one cannot scientifically argue something that is not properly defined! Perhaps we need a new term for "freestyler" to defuse the remnant hostility that's left over; maybe a (to use WDP's term) "less radical" mentality.

I've never been fully convinced of the all-up "Fashion Freedom" notion[ ...]

Now, here we are in complete agreement, Carl! And that is how we both interpret the aims of this Forum, yes?

Correct. I, however, want whatever looks we generate from our exercises to look good and to "say" positive things about us. I just feel that there's more to it that just swapping out one waist-down garment for another.

[Skirt Chaser]

Just some quick thoughts for now since I'm in the middle of making dinner... (I like to read here then think on stuff for a bit)

The essay was helpful as I have thought of a Braveheart being defined by how he dresses, not how he views others but it seems the meaning does vary and includes people who feel they are the authority on what makes an outfit masculine. The article read at first glance as: we are men, they are crossdressers. It seems to me a better test is not what other men would avoid wearing but what heterosexual women are attracted to on a man. My balding, paunchy husband in a form fitting sleeveless dress sure looks masculine to me. Um, well, apart from the slightly pregnant look.

What also came to mind was that the line of freestyler or crossdresser is not a visual one but found in the person- are they being themselves or someone else? The person in the clothes might not even be sure. What the person on the street sees in them does not define the person in a meaningful way. As for the freestyler making others look bad my guess is that when people see a man completely clothed in conventionally women's attire they probably assume the man is a transvestite because people in general are clueless about men in skirts as men. Freestylers aren't responsible if anyone thinks a guy merely in a kilt is trying to be a woman.

Freestylers who are visible and articulate about being a bloke in a skirt are sorely needed to raise awareness, not hide because others whine that it makes life more difficult for them. An an onlooker it does make the complaining bravehearts sound wimpy if a freestyler can go out in the world attired as they wish but the man in the recognizably male outfit can't. To me it sounds very self-centered for some men to ask others to hold off on their fashion freedom as if one group deserves to be accepted first.

And another 'nother thought. It seems like "what will people think" is a huge stumbling block. From what I see here people who do go out skirted find people don't notice, or care, or are polite enough to keep it to themselves. What if somebody thinks you are transvestite? Any time spent with you will show you aren't and for the passerby what does it matter? If every publicly breastfeeding mother waited for universal approval to do what needs to be done there would be a lot of hungry babies around. Perhaps men don't give their feelings the same priority and act to wear skirts when they wish to. I think they should. And odds are they won't be told by security guards to hide themselves in the restroom.

Good thing I didn't leave anything on the stove. That ended up being more than I expected and bunches of different thoughts too. And um, don't tell Quiet Man I'm going through a "just get on with it, what's the big deal?" stage.

[Uncle Al]

I'm minded to think that this debate is getting un-necessarily drawn into a 'braveheart'/'freestyler' argument,..snip..- that between 'freestyler' and 'crossdresser'.

....snip...to the perceptions of the public at large. Clearly, a "hard clip" can be set at the "intent to 'pass'"; ...snip...

Well, there's clearly the perception that such a boundary exists: we just don't have a proper definition -- or even arguing point -- about where it is, and one cannot scientifically argue something that is not properly defined! ...snip...

Correct. I, however, want whatever looks we generate from our exercises to look good and to "say" positive things about us. I just feel that there's more to it that just swapping out one waist-down garment for another.

For me, the properly defined "line of demarkation" is the waistline.

Below the waist is fair game. Skirts, Kilts, Leggings, Etc.

Above the waist is trying to complete a femminized look.
When shopping 'across-the-aisle', I don't look at the blouses, suit coats,
etc., as this is 'crossing-the-line' into cross-dressing/impersonation.

Anyone who does this is not promoting the MIS/MIK cause. They
are promoting complete cross-dressing. (Or they need a good shrink.)

WE DON'T NEED THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IN PROMOTING MIS/MIK

The change must be gradual. We have to silently sneek up to the point
where skirts and kilts are accepted by everyone, just as women won the
right to wear pants in the 40's-50's. 100% acceptance didn't happen
overnight then, and it won't happen overnight for us either.

OK-This is my opinion and definition. I can't go beyond this.
I won't go beyond this.

Again this is my 3 cents worth, but I stand behind it 100%

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Stevie D]

Just some quick thoughts for now since I'm in the middle of making dinner...
<SNIP>
....... I'm going through a "just get on with it, what's the big deal?" stage.

Very well said indeed, Skirt Chaser. Your entire post is the voice of reason and common sense. Thank You!

[Since1982]

Simple. I agree with Uncle Al 100%. MIS/MIK is best defined as between the waist and ankles.

[ziggy_encaoua]

MIS is best defined as between the waist and ankles.

That's kind of stating the bleeding obvious isn't it what next the sky is blue the moon is sphere shaped, water is wet.

I really don't understand why it is folk with in the MFF movement want to section themselves off into even smaller groups when we are not a large group in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned if you dress like Rob Roy or Boy George I think you're both of the essence of MFF are therefore col in my book.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Oh by the way for any of those who are tiring of denouncing of those who arte tiring of being denounced for pushing the envelope or who don’t want to be ostracized for not complying with imposition of ant ‘Braveheart code’ then there’s the Defiant Angel Forum

[alexthebird]

For me, the properly defined "line of demarkation" is the waistline.

Below the waist is fair game. Skirts, Kilts, Leggings, Etc.

Above the waist is trying to complete a femminized look.
When shopping 'across-the-aisle', I don't look at the blouses, suit coats,
etc., as this is 'crossing-the-line' into cross-dressing/impersonation.

Anyone who does this is not promoting the MIS/MIK cause. They
are promoting complete cross-dressing. (Or they need a good shrink.)

WE DON'T NEED THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IN PROMOTING MIS/MIK

OK-This is my opinion and definition. I can't go beyond this.
I won't go beyond this.

Again this is my 3 cents worth, but I stand behind it 100%

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

Uncle Al,

Although I disagree with it, I quite respect your opinion, and I respect the fact that you are setting limits for yourself. I would ask you, though, to respect my opinions and my limits, which are different than yours. At the moment, I'm having trouble understanding how implying that people who take a broader view of fashion need psychiatric care ("a good shrink") shows respect.

I think that there is a lot of room for exploration here. Carl's concern about not only wearing skirts, but looking good while doing it is an important one (although then we have to figure out what looking good means). When in response to some of Carl's questions, Merlin brought up the idea of being concerned about the boundaries between freestyling and crossdressing that made me stop short and think about things differently - like many others here, I assumed a distinction between braveheart & freestyling without considering how important the distinction between freestyling and crossdressing was to many people here.

I'm sure that if we approach the discussions with courtesy and respect that we can learn a little more about each other and uncover some common ground.

[Uncle Al]

Uncle Al,

Although I disagree with it, I quite respect your opinion, and I respect the fact that
you are setting limits for yourself. I would ask you, though, to respect my opinions
and my limits, which are different than yours. At the moment, I'm having trouble
understanding how implying that people who take a broader view of fashion need
psychiatric care ("a good shrink") shows respect.

Those 'people' who take 'their broader views' to the extreme (femenistic) are being
detrimental to getting skirts/kilts accepted for the common, everyday John Q. Public.

If 'they' can't see that 'they' are being made fun of, are visually suggesting to the 'public'
that 'they' are 'one sandwich shy of a full picnic', are hindering the progress for male
fashion freedom then 'they' need help. (a.k.a. shrink)

I would gladly enjoy a broader fashion spectrum but a chiffon top is crossing the line
into female impersonation. Yes, many different fabrics would yield facinating results.
But wearing a womans blouse, which is not taylored to the male figure, is taking
away the image of being male. Men in skirts/kilts is what our primary goal is about,
getting these items accepted into everyday attire.

I think that there is a lot of room for exploration here. Carl's concern about not only wearing
skirts, but looking good while doing it is an important one (although then we have to figure out
what looking good means).

Agreed!

When in response to some of Carl's questions, Merlin brought up the idea of being concerned
about the boundaries between freestyling and crossdressing that made me stop short and think
about things differently - like many others here, I assumed a distinction between braveheart
& freestyling without considering how important the distinction between freestyling and crossdressing
was to many people here.

I guess I was implying the freestyling verses crossdressing aspect.

What greatly bothers me is the thin fine line between freestyling and crossdressing.
A nice taylored mens shirt, with tie, ascot, and/or vest enhance the visual of
a man in a skirt/kilt. An open shirt collar with a sport coat still says that the person
is a man, but wearing a skirt instead of trousers.

I'm sure that if we approach the discussions with courtesy and respect that we can
learn a little more about each other and uncover some common ground.

I agree, but a few of our 'patrons' PUSH their extreme ideas about 'freestyling'
onto others of the Cafe'. This I don't appreciate. I've had my 'courtesy and respect'
pushed to the limit. I no longer respond to any posts that shows, depicts, or encourages
complete womens attire for men.

Today's society is not ready for total male crossdressing.

The Do Not Cross line should be the waistline. This is to start with! After a few years of
acceptance, THEN continue above the waistline. For now, I just want to see skirts/kilts
accepted by John Q. Public as an everyday, non-event thing for men. This goal is what
most of the Cafe' patrons want to see happen - acceptance with out riddicule or hatred.
Of not being lumped into the catagory of a 'pervert' or pediophile.

If these thoughts offend anyone, T.B.S.S.
We have to crawl before we can walk, then walk before we can run.
We're still in the crawling stage--we're not ready to run a marathon.


Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[Departed Member]

Those 'people' who take 'their broader views' to the extreme (femenistic) are being detrimental to getting skirts/kilts accepted for the common, everyday John Q. Public.

Yeah, I fear those who trumpet the "femme" message are being extremely selfish.

If 'they' can't see that 'they' are being made fun of, are visually suggesting to the 'public' that 'they' are 'one sandwich shy of a full picnic', are hindering the progress for male fashion freedom then 'they' need help. (a.k.a. shrink)

But to be fair, aren't certain femme-orientated folk posting here, already under psychiatric care? I'm sure, in fact I'm certain, that is the case!

But wearing a womans blouse, which is not taylored to the male figure, is taking away the image of being male. Men in skirts/kilts is what our primary goal is about,
getting these items accepted into everyday attire.

Hear, hear!

When in response to some of Carl's questions, Merlin brought up the idea of being concerned about the boundaries between freestyling and crossdressing that made me stop short and think about things differently - like many others here, I assumed a distinction between braveheart & freestyling without considering how important the distinction between freestyling and crossdressing was to many people here.

Thank you! And that is what I truly believe to be the 'real' argument here. We must not get trapped into the braveheart/freestyler vein. If anyone here wishes to try & force the Kilt = braveheart and Skirt = freestyler (& some here have done!), then those days disappeared, long ago.

I agree, but a few of our 'patrons' PUSH their extreme ideas about 'freestyling' onto others of the Cafe'. This I don't appreciate. I've had my 'courtesy and respect' pushed to the limit.

Snap!

For now, I just want to see skirts/kilts accepted by John Q. Public as an everyday, non-event thing for men. This goal is what most of the Cafe' patrons want to see happen - acceptance with out riddicule or hatred. Of not being lumped into the catagory of a 'pervert' or pediophile.

With you 100%! (& I suspect a good few more?)

[crfriend]

Those 'people' who take 'their broader views' to the extreme (femenistic) are being detrimental to getting skirts/kilts accepted for the common, everyday John Q. Public.

I wonder just how much this may be the case. Certainly any bloke who dares "shove both legs down one pipe" risks some derision (Sapphire's encountered some of it; the antagonist, once confronted with me, has I believe since clammed up), but it seems that for the majority in this community (as it stands) would likely be perceived a bit differently than an out-and-out "role-player".

As an aside, and with temporary "mod hat on", I'd like to advise extreme caution in using terms such as "those people", "them", and so-forth as they're dehumanising. Thanks.

I would gladly enjoy a broader fashion spectrum but a chiffon top is crossing the line
into female impersonation. Yes, many different fabrics would yield facinating results.

Fabric is just that -- fabric -- a medium in which to clothe one's self and to keep one's self warm. It's also a seriously interesting way to play with silhouette, line, and feel. To give credit it's due, Al goes on to state that women's tops do not work on (most) men; this is axiomatic, and also represents why dresses are so frought with peril for guys. If it doesn't fit, it looks wrong, and attracts (negative) attention. If it fits well, it should "go over" just fine no matter what the fabric may be.

Men in skirts/kilts is what our primary goal is about, getting these items accepted into everyday attire.

In a nutshell, yes, but, I'll posit, primarily in line with having the entire "look" go over well and having it be "believable". In this case, I'll define "believable" as representing "if anyone who knows us sees us on the street, they will immediately recognise us -- as who we are -- instead of wondering, 'Who the heck was that?!'"

What greatly bothers me is the thin fine line between freestyling and crossdressing.
A nice taylored mens shirt, with tie, ascot, and/or vest enhance the visual of
a man in a skirt/kilt. An open shirt collar with a sport coat still says that the person
is a man, but wearing a skirt instead of trousers.

This may actually be closer to the "problem point" than I was originally agitating about. As far as jackets/coats go, we already have a bit of a problem. The traditional men's jacket is too long to really look good with a skirt; the specialised kilt-jacket points this up rather handily. Some specialisation is necessary "up top" if the overall look is to remain cohesive. I have a shot or two with me in a long-ish skirt and a "standard" suit-coat, and the rig looks awkward.

As an aside to Merlin at this point, we're squarely now within the realm of "fashion" (read, "style") and design at this point. Bear in mind that "fashion" is not a slur, or anything remotely negative; it's how one expresses an idea in two-dimensional fabric on three-dimensional humans.

Today's society is not ready for total male crossdressing.

[...] Do Not Cross line should be the waistline.

"Society" is not likely to be "ready for total male crossdressing" for quite some time -- especially the male component of society. However, as I've alluded to above, some "above the waistline" garments that we all -- "society", too -- accept as utterly male fail in subtle ways when paired with a "one-pipe" lower aspect. In this case, the failure is rather subtle, but by properly working that subtlety we may be able to gain more ground than what we might lose. Yes, it'll mean that we may have separate jackets/sport-coats for skirted rigs than we'll wear with our trousers, but by keeping the "tops" separate we'll be doing ourselves a favour in the long haul (I think).

If these thoughts offend anyone, T.B.S.S.

The foregoing is a perfectly acceptable statement of opinion and should be applauded! Hence, there is no need or requirement to apologise. To the best of my knowledge, we're all adults here; if some of us have thin skins then maybe it's time to think about thickening them up a bit.

[Uncle Al]

As an aside, and with temporary "mod hat on", I'd like to advise extreme caution in using terms such as "those people", "them", and so-forth as they're dehumanising. Thanks.

Carl, I was trying to use a 'generic term', and couldn't think of any better words.

If these thoughts offend anyone, T.B.S.S.

The foregoing is a perfectly acceptable statement of opinion and should be applauded! Hence, there is no need or requirement to apologise. To the best of my knowledge, we're all adults here; if some of us have thin skins then maybe it's time to think about thickening them up a bit.

Thanks Carl, I guess-as Merlin pointed out-I 'snapped'.
I'll get another can of glue to put myself back together again.

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[kilthose]

I am surprised that this point is not obvious: There are no strict "bravehearts" left at SkirtCafe. There haven't been any here for many years. Almost all left nearly 5 years ago. In early 2004 there was a major defection from SkirtCafe (then called Tom's Cafe), and around 80% of the membership left for X Marks The Scot (a kilt only forum, which started in January 2004).

Yes there are kilt wearers here, but those remaining here are also interested in other skirts apart from kilts.

The debates here are NOT a braveheart vs freestyle issue. That is largely a dead issue since the bravehearts resolved it by leaving for a new forum.

Most of those who are complaining about the seemingly increasing "femme" leanings of the forum wear skirts themselves, and some have never worn a kilt. Again, emphasising that this is not a braveheart versus freestyle issue.

Forget "braveheart" and "freestyle". The issue is simply that there is a perception of increasing femme leanings in this forum, and that is a problem for part of the membership of the forum.

KH

[kilthose]

I share some concern about the direction of the forum. For me, though, its not really a matter of not respecting the rights of others to wear what they like, but simply a matter of focus.

It's not a complex issue: I also belong to a few aviation forums. If people started chatting there a lot about, say, dog breeding (or whatever), such that those posts started to form a significant percentage of the total posts, I'd get annoyed. It would be distracting, and get in the way of my enjoyment of that forum. I'd complain. But that does not mean that I do not respect the right of people to breed dogs, and for them to go somewhere to talk about it. It's simply that I don't want to have to hear about it.

Likewise here. Historically this forum (in it's previous incarnations) was primarily a forum for discussing men in kilts and skirts. That seems to be changing. There is increasing talk about nail varnish, transvestism, heels, underwear, dresses, leggings and gender. At the same time there is decreasing volume of the regular men-in-skirt field reports that were the bedrock of this forum. That is, not only is the noise is increasing, and the quality programming is decreasing -- maybe they are related.

I am not sure what the reason is -- is it simply that refugees from Atrium and IMFF are changing the mix here, or is it that Bob's modifications to the mission statement to encourage "other garments", a "dialog on gender", and put a little more emphasis on "fashion freedom", are encouraging different types of new members.

Whatever the reason, I am simply finding the forum increasingly unsatisfying and boring. In no way, however, is this a reflection on the hard work that Carl Friend does (thanks Carl!). The problem here, for me, is the changing focus of the forum, rather than his execution.

KH

[kilthose]

In re-reading my last post, I was struck by a point: How can I complain about being bored, when I don't do more myself to post interesting stuff?! It's an excellent point, but my reason for it is perhaps more poignant.

I am a member of X Marks The Scot, because I like wearing kilts aswell as skirts. I have made hundreds of posts there, including posting pictures of myself. I have no concerns about posting those pictures at X Marks The Scot, because I am comfortable about the image that that forum portrays. I am not comfortable about the image this forum portrays.

To clarify -- if a friend, or family member, or coworker, saw my picture at SkirtCafe, their assumptions about the motivations for my skirt wearing would be colored by what else they read here. There is an awful lot of discussion about items almost indistinguishable from crossdressing. A lot of discussion about transvestism itself, and gender. I would not blame a friend, family member or coworker assuming my motivations were based in crossdressing given that.

I don't think I am alone in that type of thinking. I noticed that the SkirtCafe photo gallery got closed -- presumably as it had received no photos. The old Tom's Cafe had a vibrant "MUG Shots" area. The number of photos submissions here is minute compared to X-Marks, and far less than something like LAUF (Delphi forum on legwear).

KH