skirtcafe.org

JeffB1959 wrote:SkirtsDad's thread where he asked for opinions on a dress he modeled led me to boldly do the same thing here with a sweater dress I recently bought from JCPenney. I'm thinking this dress would be for a more formal outing like dinner at a fancy restaurant or a night out at the orchestra, especially when I add hosiery, some jewelry and a clutch bag to match my shoes. Opinions? Does this pass muster? Can it be improved in any way?

Looks great! Love the colour as well

In RE: Jeff's last post in this thread:
Hear! Hear!

On the other hand there's less daylight between Jeff's position and Dillon's than one might think.

I feel both approaches are valid and can lead to good results for the individual and our little collective.

dillon wrote:I'm a pretty casual guy. I don't worry too much about a "look" more than any man pushing sixty would...

...Like now; I'm in a purple patterned stretch nylon skirt from Woolrich, and a cheap grey tourist tee shirt from Roswell, NM, with black Sanuk flip-flip-flops, shaved legs, and toenails a Sally Hansen shade called "Crushed", sort of a tomato-pink...

...It looks and feels natural without looking like a costume...

This begs the definition of what's a look, what's a coordinated outfit, and what's a costume.

I suppose it depends on how outrageous (or not) a given set of clothes appears to the beholder.

Hi heels? I think not. That is strictly women's territory. For one thing, men are taller than women already, and putting on heels just make you stand out, rather than blend in.

Caultron wrote:This begs the definition of what's a look, what's a coordinated outfit, and what's a costume.

I suppose it depends on how outrageous (or not) a given set of clothes appears to the beholder.

I have been "accused" of wearing "costume" on a few occasions, and I can appreciate why -- my "look" is rather more elaborate than what's expected today (especially on men) and typically involves brilliant colour and other accoutrements that went out of vogue mid-last-century or earlier. However, I wear it well, and I wear it convincingly, and more folks than not comment on how sharp it is rather than asking me what role I'm playing and where.

All of us -- yes, each and every one -- should develop our own sense of style and work hard on making it work for us. Some of us already have a pretty good idea on the matter (JeffB, Caultron, Milfmog, and KiltedJohn come to mind as of recently), and others seem to be actively working on it (Moonshadow, for one). But we really need to own what we wear and do.

If you own the look and rock it well, that will impress onlookers. Likely every time.

RavenTao wrote:Hi heels? I think not. That is strictly women's territory. For one thing, men are taller than women already, and putting on heels just make you stand out, rather than blend in.

If they're "not for you" or "not your style", that's fine, but it seems a little judgmental to make such a sweeping statement that they're "strictly women's territory". Some members of society consider skirts to be "strictly women's territory".

Remember, also, that heeled shoes developed because of horse riding (funny, men seemingly stopped wearing skirts because of the need to ride a horse, but this was why we developed heels - I digress). Also, Louis (15,16,17?) of France wore heels of between 2-3 inches from paintings of him.

Personally, I prefer some styles of high heeled boots, but not shoes - go figure!

BTW, welcome to the Cafe!

Disaffected.citizen wrote:

RavenTao wrote:Hi heels? I think not. That is strictly women's territory. For one thing, men are taller than women already, and putting on heels just make you stand out, rather than blend in.

If they're "not for you" or "not your style", that's fine, but it seems a little judgmental to make such a sweeping statement that they're "strictly women's territory". Some members of society consider skirts to be "strictly women's territory".

Remember, also, that heeled shoes developed because of horse riding (funny, men seemingly stopped wearing skirts because of the need to ride a horse, but this was why we developed heels - I digress). Also, Louis (15,16,17?) of France wore heels of between 2-3 inches from paintings of him.

In addition,

I have personally seen a man wearing somewhat high heel shoes at our corporate office, which is VERY VERY VERY conservative BTW. They were "men's" high heel shoes. It is not uncommon to see men's cowboy boots with a bit of an elevated heel. As you look through this article about the high heeled shoe, you will see that the shoe has been long considered footwear for both sexes, especially men.

But I'm sure you [RavenTao] were referring to the traditional "women's" high heel shoe... to that statement I pose a question... Why do you feel it is strictly women's territory? Is it simply a matter of height? So would it be acceptable for a short man to wear "women's" high heeled shoes? Should it be inappropriate for a tall woman to wear them?

I would bet that if one were to take a honest and candid evaluation of the notion of being a "women's only shoe", then one would find the reason for such notion would be quite arbitrary.

To put it a different way... what defines men's and women's clothes isn't exactly written in the stars, it's a result of the ever changing customs of the human species. There is no rule that states "you can't wear this", or "you can't wear that". Granted, certain items of clothing may result in teasing and ridicule... but to wear them is still our prerogative. Today's hideous is tomorrow's hot trend! Yesterday's hot trend is today's hideous! We as a people decide collectively what is acceptable or not, and the only way to bring forth continued evolution is to keep sticking our neck out and trying new things.

History almost never remembers those who play by the rules!

moonshadow wrote:History almost never remembers those who play by the rules!

Moon You have hit the nail smack dab on the head I do not find to my way of thinking that any piece of cloth no matter how it is cut or sewn together can have a sex assigned to it. But then again I have been told I was weird and crazy! Maybe I am but it is my belief that we should wear what WE want to wear and not what anyone else or society says we should wear.

Fred

moonshadow wrote:...History almost never remembers those who play by the rules!

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." Frank Zappa.

moonshadow wrote:

Disaffected.citizen wrote:

RavenTao wrote:Hi heels? I think not. That is strictly women's territory. For one thing, men are taller than women already, and putting on heels just make you stand out, rather than blend in.

If they're "not for you" or "not your style", that's fine, but it seems a little judgmental to make such a sweeping statement that they're "strictly women's territory". Some members of society consider skirts to be "strictly women's territory".

Remember, also, that heeled shoes developed because of horse riding (funny, men seemingly stopped wearing skirts because of the need to ride a horse, but this was why we developed heels - I digress). Also, Louis (15,16,17?) of France wore heels of between 2-3 inches from paintings of him.

In addition,

I have personally seen a man wearing somewhat high heel shoes at our corporate office, which is VERY VERY VERY conservative BTW. They were "men's" high heel shoes. It is not uncommon to see men's cowboy boots with a bit of an elevated heel. As you look through this article about the high heeled shoe, you will see that the shoe has been long considered footwear for both sexes, especially men.

But I'm sure you [RavenTao] were referring to the traditional "women's" high heel shoe... to that statement I pose a question... Why do you feel it is strictly women's territory? Is it simply a matter of height? So would it be acceptable for a short man to wear "women's" high heeled shoes? Should it be inappropriate for a tall woman to wear them?

I would bet that if one were to take a honest and candid evaluation of the notion of being a "women's only shoe", then one would find the reason for such notion would be quite arbitrary.

To put it a different way... what defines men's and women's clothes isn't exactly written in the stars, it's a result of the ever changing customs of the human species. There is no rule that states "you can't wear this", or "you can't wear that". Granted, certain items of clothing may result in teasing and ridicule... but to wear them is still our prerogative. Today's hideous is tomorrow's hot trend! Yesterday's hot trend is today's hideous! We as a people decide collectively what is acceptable or not, and the only way to bring forth continued evolution is to keep sticking our neck out and trying new things.

History almost never remembers those who play by the rules!

When I said that "it was strictly women's territory", that is my judgement to make! I thought I read somewhere that this site was not about cross-dressing or transvestism, but in promoting the use of skirts/kilts for men's wear. Women's Hi heel shoes do not fit the bill. What's next? Lipstick and eyeshadow? If the guy is going to wear a pencil skirt and high heels, why not finish it off with a wig and fake boobs?

RavenTao wrote: When I said that "it was strictly women's territory", that is my judgement to make! I thought I read somewhere that this site was not about cross-dressing or transvestism, but in promoting the use of skirts/kilts for men's wear. Women's Hi heel shoes do not fit the bill. What's next? Lipstick and eyeshadow? If the guy is going to wear a pencil skirt and high heels, why not finish it off with a wig and fake boobs?

Here you have been on this website for only two days and you are stirring up a hornet´s nest. Most people would say that skirts do not belong belong on men. So who are you to make an absolute statement that high heels do not belong on men?

You should have said, ¨In my opinion ...¨.

As far as the statement ¨why not finish it off with a wig and fake boobs¨ I do agree with drawing the line there. The person in question would try passing as a woman.

Now on the other hand, I have long hair and real boobs [40 DD] that are a part of me. And I wear eyeshadow and lipstick for business and church. However my speaking voice sounds like a combination of Johnny Cash and Joe Friday of Dragnet and my singing voice is basso profundo, so I do not pass as a woman.

John

RavenTao wrote:When I said that "it was strictly women's territory", that is my judgement to make!

You're dodging my question....

moonshadow wrote:Why do you feel it is strictly women's territory?

You basically told us more or less because you said so... or to put it exactly... "that's my judgment to make"...

No no no.... if your gonna drop the old "its for women only" bomb, especially in freestyle fashions, you're going to have to do better than.. "because I say so".

Not trying to harp or flame... but you're speaking with authority on a matter of opinion.

You're move. I await the answer to my question.

RavenTao wrote:When I said that "it was strictly women's territory", that is my judgement to make!

Exactly so; if that's the way you feel about heels, you're entitled to that opinion.

However, I think you'll find here, as in real life, that flatly stating an opinion as universal truth offends those who disagree with you. So try to prefix such remarks with an IMHO, or, "At least to me..." or, "Personally, I feel..." or whatever. Because while you can certainty decide what you will and won't wear, you don't get to decide what others will and won't wear.

RavenTao wrote:I thought I read somewhere that this site was not about cross-dressing or transvestism, but in promoting the use of skirts/kilts for men's wear. Women's Hi heel shoes do not fit the bill. What's next? Lipstick and eyeshadow? If the guy is going to wear a pencil skirt and high heels, why not finish it off with a wig and fake boobs?

The board tends to be tolerant not only of skirts but also of things worn with them -- tights, heels, purses, slips, and so forth. Dresses are also OK. Not everyone here wears those kinds of accessories but some do and that's fine.

What's off-topic are complete makeovers so the wearer can masquerade as a woman. We're men who enjoy wearing certain types of clothing more often worn by women, but we're not men trying to look like women.

Or putting it another way, we wear skirts and related items despite the fact that they're normally worn only by women, and not because they're normally worn only by women .

So relax. If you want tolerance and acceptance, you also have to give it. It's as simple as that.

RavenTao wrote:When I said that "it was strictly women's territory", that is my judgement to make! I thought I read somewhere that this site was not about cross-dressing or transvestism, but in promoting the use of skirts/kilts for men's wear. Women's Hi heel shoes do not fit the bill. What's next? Lipstick and eyeshadow? If the guy is going to wear a pencil skirt and high heels, why not finish it off with a wig and fake boobs?

So, the Freestyle Fashions forum is now dealing in absolutes. Thank you for your learned "judgement", Me Lud! What, pray, is the sentence passed on those men choosing to wear such abominations?

Next case: skirts for men!

But seriously, some research of history, fashion and culture from around the world will show up many different viewpoints. I personally would not wear a skirt in Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the men wear long robes (don't know what they wear underneath, and don't want to know), because I like the skin on my back not torn to shreds and my head attached by my neck to my shoulders. I'm not American, but would have thought twice about wearing a skirt in some southern states, yet our friend, Bamaskirting, does it with much aplomb.

We have seen the fashions of 17th and 18th century Europe, where the male aristocracy wore shoes with heels; the 1970s; cowboys; Mongolian horsemen dating back centuries.

I may not agree with the styles of some, perhaps many, members of this site; but I defend their rights to choose what they wear. Calls to mind the quote by Martin Niemöller "... Then they came for me.... " https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/art ... d=10007392

RavenTao wrote:I thought I read somewhere that this site was not about cross-dressing or transvestism, but in promoting the use of skirts/kilts for men's wear.

- Correct, but that is just the header, the fuller details are here http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9620. The "Freestyle Fashions" forum title expands upon the scope of discussion to include other items of clothing usually considered more "feminine" but worn in a masculine context.

So, RavenTao, please feel free to wear what you like and with which you are comfortable; but please also have the courtesy to acknowledge the free choices of the other members of this forum to choose all of their own clothes without judgement upon their motives for doing so. Your "opinion" (for that is what it is, not "judgement" - we are not in court) is not just fine, it is welcomed, particularly if it challenges (it would seem to be doing just that, at present) and engages. Your critiqué, applied to the styles and choices, may enhance and further the fashions available to men; but your choice of words may drown that message with the "noise" of its conveyance. So far, we have focussed on your "judgement", rather than properly discussing your "opinion"; engaging, explaining, citing examples, etc.

So, why do you believe that shoes with a heel are "strictly women's territory"?

Is there a particular height that delineates the end of what can be considered a mans shoe? Or maybe a particular style of heel? What about "hidden heels" - rumoured to be worn by Tom Cruise?

As for make-up, what about nail polish? Many of our friends here not just dabble with, but positively rock, nail polish.

Are you aware just how much make-up is applied to men in television and film - news casters, film stars, etc?


P.S. Whilst writing the above, Caultron has kindly written in more succinct terms; thank you.