Freestyler section of the forum

[SkirtedViking]

My definition of a freestyler is a man that is gender correct, no wigs,pads and so on while wearing skirts,heels,"feminine" tops,etc. The best example for freestyling is women - there is no apparel that is forbidden(no social scorn) for women,even on formal occassions, no matter how masculine is the clothing,shoes,accessories. Yep, I see such women everyday on the outside - man's t-shirt, man's trousers and flat shoes with laces, baseball hat and all that while she is not hiding the fact that she is a woman, the breasts are there, the voice is feminine, there is no fake moustache and beard. I wonder how come the term crossdresser is never applied to a woman and thus has remained as a gender descriminatory word?Accepting that a man can't be always in the macho vision does not necessarily mean that people who accept that notion would wear the same but just to view that as a fashion and gender equality.The idea of freestyle section is to present apparel out of the so called "braveheart" ideology in a a gender correct image of the male person.Judging by many posts it seems to me that many members on this site (which is not bad or good just a fact) are very conservative and thus the freestyler section is somewhat cramped and whenever someone posts whatever out of the "masculine" stereotype many members jump on the wagon: "I am masculine so I wouldn't wear that". In my humble opinion that mindset, that principle is also leading to all the rest non-skirt wearing "masculine" men (and some women share that view) who think that a skirt no matter how "masculine" is not for males but for women only - the same very principle is applied within male skirt-wearers to apparel that is out of the masculinist tradition of the 20th and 21st century.If it is not masculine it is tranny blah blah blah.That is the opinion of a 1.85 cm tall guy with a beard and very masculine stature and thus being a freestyler and not anything else.So let's hope that the section will be braver and more members shall contribute to the discussion of gender and fashion equality.
P.S. I do not mind and respect braveheart ideology, just has too many traits of the society that we all (male skirt-wearers) suffer from - machismo.

[Pythos]

I have been trying to express this for ages now. I have gotten absolutely no-where. Good luck.

[crfriend]

At an intellectual level (before "intellectual" became a swear word), I suspect you would find most men agreeing with the theses presented above; where it becomes clouded is at an emotional level. Now, I'll happily admit to having precisely no credentials in the Psychology Community, but one of the things that continues to strike me is how acceptance can be granted to others but not embraced for one's self. My personal suspicion is that there's deep-seated fear of rejection by one's peers if one appears "different" -- even if the peers have expressed understanding of the notion in hte past.

Personally, I'd really like to get beyond the rather "loaded" (as in "loaded for bear") terms of "Braveheart" and "Freestyle"; like love and hate, they're horns on the same bull. I do not know whether any sort of "reconciliation" is possible -- or required -- but what is needed is understanding: not to mention a cessation of sniping and guerilla warfare on the parts of both "sides". Both modes should be accepted so long as one is being "gender honest": whether that'll ever happen is up to conjecture and a good guess as to when Hell will freeze over.

There is historical precedent for many of the styles quite a few of us are fiddling with now -- with some success -- even in the face of the nay-sayers. I'll bring up a few: (1) heels, (2) makeup, (3) one-piece garments (now known as dresses, formerly known as robes). That ought to stir the pot a bit.

Heels were originally used to assist soldiers in long-haul marching, and later as a device to keep a horseman's foot firmly in the stirrups; only later did they morph to being "fashion".

Makeup has been used since time immemorial -- i.e. before we bothered recording any of it -- so such notions of masculine vs. feminine don't necessarily wash. Ditto with such things like nail-polish. It's ornamentation, pure and simple; get over it.

I suppose the notion of the "dress" for guys should get a few electrons spilled over it, and on that notion I shall mention a single word: "toga". If it's good enough for Julius Caesar, "Bluto" Blutarsky, and D-Day, it's good enough for me. "Caftan" warrants Honourable Mention as does "Burgundian robe".

As far as the notion of "crossdressing" (and its pseudoscholarly namesake "transvestism") goes, everybody who's been here for more than six months knows how I can rail about that so I'll not belabour the point: save, of course, to mention that it's sexist and unilaterally applied.

I'll defer commentary on "masculine" vs. "feminine" to another day, however, because I believe that many of those notions lie solely between our ears and many be interpreted in various manners.

[sapphire]

Skirted Viking wrote:

I wonder how come the term crossdresser is never applied to a woman

This is historically incorrect. Women in trousers were called cross-dressers. While I do not know the exact timeframe, I do know that it was applied to women in trousers in the early 20th century.

[Pythos]

But we are no longer in the 20th century, and the term is only used to describe and degrade men.

[SkirtedViking]

I know history of clothing and stuff,that is a topic that I often delve into - women were also called crossdressers till around II World War, but not since.So in the present situation the term is discriminatory to males. My compliments to women for gaining fashion and social freedom, they are a good example of what men should do.

[ziggy_encaoua]

Freestylers are always welcome here

[Pythos]

I found this on the net, very interesting.

IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT TROUSERED WOMEN CAN RUN AMOK AT WILL, FOR FRANKLY THE SIGHT IS CRIMINAL AND AN AFFRONT TO THE SENSES.” Women in pants was an “attempt to merge the tewo sexes into one person;” they were afflicted with “permanent mental hallucination;” they were arrested by policemen because the cops were offended by pants on women; they needed “treatment” in “the best conducted hospitals for the insane”—NY Times, May 27, 1876, page 6.

Hmmmm. Perhaps more women, ah heck more people should see this. And then wonder why we continue to support such draconic and stupid rules, especially women that say crap like "well I like men in skirts, just not my boyfriend" What utter nonsense.

[SkirtedViking]

Pythos, my girlfriend supports me thoroughly and though I am very masculine physically - as you can see from my posts I am defending fashion equality on all fronts, which means that I virtually wear as a guy whatever I like as shoes,all kind of clothes(upper or lower),accessories, unless the item is for specific body parts that I do not have nor want to have.So not all women do not support that it is just all the media and stereotypes imply the macho notion and the gay link when it comes to males in "female" stuff or non macho behaviour.Yep, I forgot the fetish bullshitt, that for a couple of masturbators (excuse me for my rude tongue) that get excited of sissy or whatever that is - all men are condemned as either gay or perverts or both.
Yes in history there were women treated the same way for wearing trousers and so on just like some of us are condemned for wearing skirts and so on.The thing that changed for women - it became a mass event after II World War due to many factors as years of fighting for as they caLLed it equal rights with males, the patriarchal notion that men's is better than women's a etc. and of course there were not enough male workers during war time and women started wearing as a mass event their husband's clothes and once people got used to the idea seeing so many women like that it gradually became accepted.And most importantly, the society raises us in the tradition that male as a concept is higher than female, so no wonder many women wanted simultaneously to dress as men(perceiving it as a step forward), while most men are ashamed of wearing even a kilt.

[Smaug777]

I found out about the comfort of wearing what is traditionally considered "female attire" because I am a cross dresser. I have never gone out in public in "drag" and never will as i don't believe I could pass as a woman. My wife is completely comfortable around me when I am "dressed up" and sometimes helps me with make-up and nail polish and the like. I don't know why I like it, but I do, it doesn't hurt anyone so I will continue. That said, since I now know how comfortable skirts and dresses are, I want to be able to wear them anytime and anywhere I want. I don't want to try to look like a woman but just want to be comfy. The only way it will ever become acceptable in society, is if we men who know how comfortable they are, start wearing them in public. I agree with you all that fashion should not be gender specific, I would like to be able to also carry a purse without people judging me. I would like to wear more comfortable shoes or paint my nails, I am a man and like being that. I don't want to change my sex, I want to change how society views those of us who like to take advantage of our freedom to dress the way we like.
gotta go maybe I'll add to this later, Craig

[Pythos]

You are preaching what I have been trying to convey for years.

An absolute prime example of a road block when it comes to male fashion freedom was what happened to me last night.j

Mom mother decided to my chagrine (I had several lesson plans to do last night), to go out for dinner. I was wearing a long dark gray t-shirt, and black leggings. When time for dinner came around, I thought that all I needed to do was put on some good tennis shoes and light jacket. (we going to a place that is hardly posh, I have been there with my brother and sister in law when they were in athletic attire). My overall look would have been athletic

Well as I was putting on my shoes my mom came in and told me to put some jeans on. I saw she was in a pair of shorts that frankly to me looked terrible. I never tell her what she should wear, but this time I decided to say "well in that case why don't you put some jeans on, it's hot, I don't want to put some damn jeans on". Her resonse was, "I am in acceptable shorts, not ballet tights." With that she left my room.

What bugs me about this was she decided to attack my style on basis of her conception that I am gay. Hence the "ballet tights" statement. (she thinks all male ballet dancers are gay, which as is know is totally not true).

She is a beautiful example of both an unwitting sexist (had I had long hair, breasts and an innie opposed to an outtie, there would be no issue), and a supporter of blind conformity. She does not seem to recognize that her view on my style are really the only thing that comes between me and her (well that and her over judgmental views in general when it comes to how people present themselves.)

It is so hard to be one's self, when you have support like this. It makes it harder when so many people are influenced by a growing number of people like this.