skirtcafe.org

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.

Not expensive, not German,...

Jan - great picture!

Steve D - I understand where you are coming from. You say all of those things are fine, and *I AGREE WITH YOU*. (As I've said before). 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.

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.

I have started the article for you -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestyle_(clothing)

I tried to add Christopher's image, but it seems to be under a notice of deletion and requires statement of authenticity etc.

That is yours, to do as you will. I won't interfere in the slightest!

kiltair wrote:
Not expensive, not German,...

Where is it from? it looks good!

Steve 1, you certainly have a good debate rolling along! and all on-topic.
Congrats!

Uh, check out Kiltair's website: http://users.pandora.be/jbruyndonckx/janAlbum.html Thanks, Steve 1, for starting the Wiki article on freestyle.

binx

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.

No it isn't Steve.

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.

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.

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"
--------------------------------------------------

Away from all this ugliness . . . I was wearing a great new mini skirt today. Dusky pink - stretch needlecord. Looks great with charcoal grey leggings.

No handbag - or heels!

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"

To ChristopherJ:
I totally agree with you. Steve 1 is completely out of order here by unilaterally deciding what is meant by MIS - in his opinion only - and then having the audacity to claim that his Wiki article is representative of all MIS, is inviolate, and no-one else's views are worth considering, since they (in his opinion) are wrong.

Where have we heard this sort of intolerance before? Religious fundamentalism perhaps?

Despite what Steve 1 says, this whole MIS issue IS worth discussing and it seems to me that this Cafe is a good place to do it, and form a consensus of many points of view, which could then be used as a basis for a Wiki article.

To Steve 1:
Do you honestly think that your Wiki article truly represents the broad spectrum of MIS that you find on this Cafe?
If YES, then you have not understood many of the views and opinions of many who post here, and therefore your Wiki article is skewed and not representative of MIS.
If NO, then you are willfully portraying on Wiki an incomplete and unrepresentative idea of MIS to an otherwise unenlightened Wiki readership.

In either case, your continued intransigence is hurtful to me and may well be disrespectful to many of us here.

Aren't some folk here trying to read too much into the article? It seems to me we have a situation like those groups who set out to buy, say, a railway locomotive for preservation, but get bogged down arguing what livery it should carry. If they're not careful, the loco ends up scrapped, before an offer is made.

To me, the basis of the article is an excellent 'first step' for any 'outside' interested party to read - without getting confused/bored/frightened off by any perceived squabbling over the 'detail'.

The structure of the article openly invites the reader to delve further into the subject, does it not? If you're trying to 'sell' a 'new' idea (outside of people's current perception) then the 'softly, softly' approach will have a far greater impact in the long term.

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'.

I don't see Steve 1 as being arrogant or dismissive at all in his approach, or purporting to 'represent' all so-called factions of MIS - but the article does clearly give references for those who are interested, or just curious enough, to want to find out!!!

Merlin- Well said!

I see it as an introductory article on men who want to wear skirts, nothing more, nothing less. I think his insistance on the banning of tights a bit odd, but it is his choice.
Steve has successfully kept his article to skirts without drawing attention to the other accessories successfully, on the other hand, I think a good illustrative photo is just that, tights or no tights, so why all the fuss?
Looking at some of the negative feedback he has been getting I think I would have given up and scrubbed the page by now.

Maybe someone should start an article on Men In Skirts, Tights, Optional High Heels, Handbags and Clothing Often Primarily Associated With Women and Female Stereotypes Without Being True Crossdressers(MISTOHHHCOPAWWFSWBTC). Maybe the title needs a little work but maybe such a page would be more popular. It could have links to the Atrium and other such sites.:rolleyes:

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'.

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).

Making a rig look good does not make one a "poof" -- it shows that one is mindful, and proud of, his appearance. The big sticking point is that men have been for so long blending into the woodwork that most "newbies" to skirts will have a hard time adjusting to the fact that it can take quite a bit more work to properly pull off a skirted garment -- and have it look good -- than simply chucking on a pair of tr*users. Nobody notices a bloke in tr*users; they're more likely to notice gravel on the ground; a bloke in a skirted rig on the other hand (save the seemingly perpetually-invisible denim) is quite likely to rate some attention, so he'd better make it look good.

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...

"lipstick, crinolines and bright pink tutus"

On further reflection, this sounds like me on a really wild day.

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...

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.

...another adds handbags and heels; another goes for lipstick, crinolines and bright pink tutus.

Who? where? when? Did I miss something?

Do you really think, if I put C's photo in the article, everyone will be perfectly happy? This debate is just the primer for the deluge that will come, if C wins it. There are people hidden in the wings, as yet unseen.