I agree with you, Christopher, that ignoring the sensual/sexual nature of our desire to wear skirts, hosiery, etc. by arguing that it's all just a comfort issue seems intellectually dishonest. There is no way that most of society won't view our attire as wholly fetishistic if we pretend that there is nothing sexual about it - that just looks like we're in denial. Gaining broader social acceptance won't happen unless we're steadily building enlightenment of mind and spirit among those we encounter on this long, strange trip. That entails people understanding us for the people we are: normal humans expressing harmless eccentricity. I can't explain what pulls me toward skirts, but it isn't only "comfort" (although they are comfortable). I'm sure it would take years of expensive psychoanalysis to ever find the reasons. But if we dress as we wish, then try to pretend it has no sexual basis, people are just going to presume that we are a bunch of pervs who choke the chicken every time we put a skirt on. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know how to convey to the unenlightened public that we are socially functional, moral, and valuable to society. And that our choice of clothing is just that - clothing. Not meant as a threat or affront. It's part of who we are but far from the sum total!
Well, bedtime now, end of sermon!
Sasq
_______________________________________________________________
Most of the cats that you meet on the street speak of true love
Most of the time they're sitting and crying at home
One of these days they know they gotta get going
Out of the door and into the street all alone
Sometimes the lights all shining on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me
What a long strange trip it's been
Robert Hunter
MIS in Wikipedia
Sasquatch, I think your reply there says more about you, than about MIS, or about the population as a whole. I don't mean that unkindly. You admit that you don't understand your own reasons.
There are undoubtedly a minority of women who would view skirts in a similar way, if they were forced to wear trousers all their lives. The sudden release from what, to them, would be bondage, would be enough for them to regard skirts with an unusual sensuality. The vast majority, especially if men's skirts were to become accepted, would regard it as a simple, everyday clothing choice - just as women regard trousers today.
Trousers certainly have some advantages, and many women like them much more than skirts - but the 'sensuality', for them is a personal thing; they wouldn't presume to write an article about trousers saying they were sensual for everyone.
So this is the way the article should be written. If it is biased towards our eccentric minority, it will read more normally to us, but far more strangely to the people we want to convince.
There are undoubtedly a minority of women who would view skirts in a similar way, if they were forced to wear trousers all their lives. The sudden release from what, to them, would be bondage, would be enough for them to regard skirts with an unusual sensuality. The vast majority, especially if men's skirts were to become accepted, would regard it as a simple, everyday clothing choice - just as women regard trousers today.
Trousers certainly have some advantages, and many women like them much more than skirts - but the 'sensuality', for them is a personal thing; they wouldn't presume to write an article about trousers saying they were sensual for everyone.
So this is the way the article should be written. If it is biased towards our eccentric minority, it will read more normally to us, but far more strangely to the people we want to convince.
-
Sasquatch
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:18 am
- Location: North Carolina coast
Thanks for your diplomatic rebuttal. I think I strayed from the theme of the thread in my comment. My musings were really more focused on the broader picture of social acceptance than on the particular article. While I appreciate your work on behalf of the community, it seems to me that the Wiki entry has the potential to influence mainly those who go looking for the topic or happen across the link and are intrigued enough to click on it. In that regard, it's a bit like preaching to the choir; I would expect no conversions.
In this society, a man wearing a skirt in public is clearly "different." We can employ the "fashion freedom" and "comfort" ideas as talking points, as I have done myself, but, when push comes to shove, "comfort" on its own fails to answer the fundamental questions that the unenlightened have: What is it about wearing a skirt that makes it worth the inevitable social price to you as an individual? Isn't this some sort of sexual issue?
I don't have ready answers, other than to shrug, grin and say "Probably." We all understand it's a harmless indulgence that poses no menace to anyone. My guess is that this fact will have to be made evident individual by individual. You may live in an accepting community, but my corner of the world is light years away from broad acceptance. But individuals can be brought to acceptance by knowing and respecting the skirt wearer.
You're certainly right that developing the idea of MIS as a fashion alternative is a more readily acheived goal than changing hearts and minds. But the latter seems of more enduring worth to us as individuals.
Sasq
In this society, a man wearing a skirt in public is clearly "different." We can employ the "fashion freedom" and "comfort" ideas as talking points, as I have done myself, but, when push comes to shove, "comfort" on its own fails to answer the fundamental questions that the unenlightened have: What is it about wearing a skirt that makes it worth the inevitable social price to you as an individual? Isn't this some sort of sexual issue?
I don't have ready answers, other than to shrug, grin and say "Probably." We all understand it's a harmless indulgence that poses no menace to anyone. My guess is that this fact will have to be made evident individual by individual. You may live in an accepting community, but my corner of the world is light years away from broad acceptance. But individuals can be brought to acceptance by knowing and respecting the skirt wearer.
You're certainly right that developing the idea of MIS as a fashion alternative is a more readily acheived goal than changing hearts and minds. But the latter seems of more enduring worth to us as individuals.
Sasq
Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile,
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile!
Hunter/Garcia
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile!
Hunter/Garcia
Good explanation, sasq. But I still think we'd better steer clear of anything that hints at sexual reasons. You may say that comfort-sensuality-sexuality are on a sliding scale, and it affects some people more than others. You'd probably be right! In fact, I would say that anything that makes you feel super-comfortable and happy is likely to heighten your sexuality, especially if the rest of the time you are forced to be uncomfortable. That's all it is.
But as soon as you mention the more heightened senses, the more gossipy, melodramatic members of the public, with their heads full of tabloid horror stories, will jump up and say we're all [something horrible, no doubt]. That's what we are up against. How can that be avoided? I'm not sure - but maybe, just keep it nice and low-key?
And if we gain acceptance and you are able to wear your skirts 24/7 as you please, those heightened senses will go away and you will simply be happier and more comfortable *all of the time*! The low-key, everyday nature of the article will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Acceptance will still come as a clothing choice, not as a fashion - and then it will capture H&M, and will endure because so many men will find they like it. I don't understand why you think it wouldn't.
But as soon as you mention the more heightened senses, the more gossipy, melodramatic members of the public, with their heads full of tabloid horror stories, will jump up and say we're all [something horrible, no doubt]. That's what we are up against. How can that be avoided? I'm not sure - but maybe, just keep it nice and low-key?
And if we gain acceptance and you are able to wear your skirts 24/7 as you please, those heightened senses will go away and you will simply be happier and more comfortable *all of the time*! The low-key, everyday nature of the article will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Acceptance will still come as a clothing choice, not as a fashion - and then it will capture H&M, and will endure because so many men will find they like it. I don't understand why you think it wouldn't.
-
ChristopherJ
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am
I happen to agree 100% with Sasquatch here - although I really do appreciate Steve 1's efforts in preparing the MIS entry for Wiki.
I don't know what first drew me (and continues to draw me) towards wearing skirts. To be honest, I don't care - and it isn't important anyway. The main thing for me is that whatever I wear - skirts included - it is a way of expressing myself - of expressing some aspects of my character. For me, wearing a skirt is not about expressing my feminine side - it is much more about expressing my inner rebel - yet at the same time the wearing of a skirt is also an expression of, or outlet for, my sensuality. Just as it is an expression of my sense of style, or artistic taste - or complete colour-blindness! :rolleyes:
It is all of those things - and more - and so I don't pretend to understand my own motives. They are too complex. And if I don't understand why I enjoy wearing a skirt - then I don't believe anyone else can profess to understand it either.
I said previously that I didn't much like the description of 'freestylers' in the Wiki article - mainly because of the reference to some obscure ideology - and so I am really really really really pleased to see that this has now been edited to describe freestylers as:
Men who freely mix masculine and feminine-styled garments, not wishing to be constrained by what they feel are artificial conventions of gender.
I think that is spot on - and is also informative for anyone not familiar with the issues involved in wearing any sort of skirt - without getting bogged down in detail.
Just one point though. It is not gender issues that I (and presumably some other skirt wearers) do not wish to be constrained by - it is the 'artificial conventions of gender separation - in respect of clothing' that I do not wish to be constrained by. The two are different. The first is all about sexual politics, the second (mine) is about fashion freedom for men.
Sorry for rambling on. Too much coffee!
I don't know what first drew me (and continues to draw me) towards wearing skirts. To be honest, I don't care - and it isn't important anyway. The main thing for me is that whatever I wear - skirts included - it is a way of expressing myself - of expressing some aspects of my character. For me, wearing a skirt is not about expressing my feminine side - it is much more about expressing my inner rebel - yet at the same time the wearing of a skirt is also an expression of, or outlet for, my sensuality. Just as it is an expression of my sense of style, or artistic taste - or complete colour-blindness! :rolleyes:
It is all of those things - and more - and so I don't pretend to understand my own motives. They are too complex. And if I don't understand why I enjoy wearing a skirt - then I don't believe anyone else can profess to understand it either.
I said previously that I didn't much like the description of 'freestylers' in the Wiki article - mainly because of the reference to some obscure ideology - and so I am really really really really pleased to see that this has now been edited to describe freestylers as:
Men who freely mix masculine and feminine-styled garments, not wishing to be constrained by what they feel are artificial conventions of gender.
I think that is spot on - and is also informative for anyone not familiar with the issues involved in wearing any sort of skirt - without getting bogged down in detail.
Just one point though. It is not gender issues that I (and presumably some other skirt wearers) do not wish to be constrained by - it is the 'artificial conventions of gender separation - in respect of clothing' that I do not wish to be constrained by. The two are different. The first is all about sexual politics, the second (mine) is about fashion freedom for men.
Sorry for rambling on. Too much coffee!
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
-
Sasquatch
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:18 am
- Location: North Carolina coast
Sorry to belabour this debate :argue: I don't know much about gender issues or sexual politics. I just know that when someone sees a man wearing a skirt the one thought that doesn't enter his/her mind is "Hey, nothing sexual going on in that dude's head!"
I just want a society where someone could look at me in a skirt and think "He may be expressing something sexual from his psyche, but it's okay. We're all different in that regard. I can accept him as I would any other person."
Unrealistic? Absolutely! But wouldn't it be nice?
Ironically, my wife says I have no feminine side!
Sasq
I just want a society where someone could look at me in a skirt and think "He may be expressing something sexual from his psyche, but it's okay. We're all different in that regard. I can accept him as I would any other person."
Unrealistic? Absolutely! But wouldn't it be nice?
Ironically, my wife says I have no feminine side!
Sasq
Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile,
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile!
Hunter/Garcia
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile!
Hunter/Garcia
Perhaps you could say the same for women, as they seldom wear skirts:
binx
Just as unrealistic IMO.Sasquatch wrote:I just know that when someone sees a woman wearing a skirt the one thought that doesn't enter his/her mind is "Hey, nothing sexual going on in that women's head!"
She just wants a society where someone could look at her in a skirt and think "She may be expressing something sexual from her psyche, but it's okay. We're all different in that regard. I can accept her as I would any other person."
Sasq
binx
As it stands, it may be assumed that it means "with regard to clothing", although your comment is a fair one - to spell it out, to avoid confusion. Can you see how to word the sentence, so that it flows freely for the reader? I don't want it to sound geeky or pedantic.ChristopherJ wrote:it is the 'artificial conventions of gender separation - in respect of clothing' that I do not wish to be constrained by. The two are different. The first is all about sexual politics, the second (mine) is about fashion freedom for men.
-
Departed Member
I'd love to see this 'feminine side' argument put to rest for good. It seems to me a loose attempt by some would-be psychologist(s) to 'explain away' their inability to come to terms with the fact there is a growing number of males who prefer, even enjoy wearing un-bifurcated garments. I don't accept 'comfort in what you wear' should be deemed to be an almost exclusively 'feminine' trait. Neither do I accept that 'wearing a skirt' has to have even the slightest sexual overtone as far as the wearer is concerned.
I'm not really sure what the term, 'fashion freedom', is supposed to convey. To my rather insular (I freely admit) viewpoint, 'fashion' is a passing fad at any particular point in time. Way back in the Seventies, it wasn't uncommon to see Punk lads wearing skirts (usu. Royal Stewart Tartan) as well as the 'outrageous' spikey hairstyles, but would those who did, consider wearing skirts nowadays?
Currently, Goth lads have an even better choice of skirts -short/knee/long - as long as it's black! Will they still consider skirts as part of their wardrobe twenty years on? Either way, there's no 'sexual' element - just a (time-limited) 'fashion' trend.
Now, if 'fashion freedom' is taken to read 'freedom to freely wear skirts without harassment or bias', then I'm all for it - for men and women, in equal measure. Women, too? 'Fraid so!
I'm not really sure what the term, 'fashion freedom', is supposed to convey. To my rather insular (I freely admit) viewpoint, 'fashion' is a passing fad at any particular point in time. Way back in the Seventies, it wasn't uncommon to see Punk lads wearing skirts (usu. Royal Stewart Tartan) as well as the 'outrageous' spikey hairstyles, but would those who did, consider wearing skirts nowadays?
Currently, Goth lads have an even better choice of skirts -short/knee/long - as long as it's black! Will they still consider skirts as part of their wardrobe twenty years on? Either way, there's no 'sexual' element - just a (time-limited) 'fashion' trend.
Now, if 'fashion freedom' is taken to read 'freedom to freely wear skirts without harassment or bias', then I'm all for it - for men and women, in equal measure. Women, too? 'Fraid so!
I think when you wear anything which people are used to seeing as part of another "scene", they will associate you with it without even meaning to. It's the shorthand of the eye and brain which saves recalculating and re-orienting our preconceptions for each one of the thousand people we see each day on the streets and in the media. It saves time. If someone's wearing a wedding dress, I say they're getting married. If they're wearing dungarees, I expect tools, lycra is sports, blah blah.
When women first wore trousers, it might have seemed absurd because it revealed their shape far more than anything previous: trousers were previously all vertical lines, for men.. now here they were being rounded out, really showing the figure, and it took people a generation to get used to it. It must have taken a hell of a lot of nerve for a woman with well rounded hips to show off their exact shape in trousers when before they had all been covered up and their shape assumed or imagined.
The association of trousers would have been with active or working men. In the 1800's Amelia Bloomer made the first women's trousers for herself because she was walking with the men and fed up finding her skirts got mud all over the hems. Women were used to sitting in the carriages chatting while the men rambled on the moors or wherever, and skirts were fine with them. So she was adopting not just the fashion itself but the purpose of it, and the combined effect meant women used to come out of their houses specially to laugh at her. She just ignored it but it must have been really tough.
Skirts have also been seen as flirty fashions, hinting at teasing and accessibility, so men wearing them will at first appear to adopt this baggage to some extent; the exception is the kilt which people associate with warfaring Scots! In fact there's no practical difference; they are just a load of icons which all stand for something.. and that's all clothing is, but like it or not, we're stuck with the previous implications until the mass of people accept our new ones!
Meantime it might not be a time for the timid but it's a good time for guys to be able to stand out, so it's not all bad.
When women first wore trousers, it might have seemed absurd because it revealed their shape far more than anything previous: trousers were previously all vertical lines, for men.. now here they were being rounded out, really showing the figure, and it took people a generation to get used to it. It must have taken a hell of a lot of nerve for a woman with well rounded hips to show off their exact shape in trousers when before they had all been covered up and their shape assumed or imagined.
The association of trousers would have been with active or working men. In the 1800's Amelia Bloomer made the first women's trousers for herself because she was walking with the men and fed up finding her skirts got mud all over the hems. Women were used to sitting in the carriages chatting while the men rambled on the moors or wherever, and skirts were fine with them. So she was adopting not just the fashion itself but the purpose of it, and the combined effect meant women used to come out of their houses specially to laugh at her. She just ignored it but it must have been really tough.
Skirts have also been seen as flirty fashions, hinting at teasing and accessibility, so men wearing them will at first appear to adopt this baggage to some extent; the exception is the kilt which people associate with warfaring Scots! In fact there's no practical difference; they are just a load of icons which all stand for something.. and that's all clothing is, but like it or not, we're stuck with the previous implications until the mass of people accept our new ones!
Meantime it might not be a time for the timid but it's a good time for guys to be able to stand out, so it's not all bad.
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Bloomer and the Rational Dress women were also accused of hidden sexual motives, called lesbians, etc. They persisted in presenting their case as a simple, rational option - hence the name of the society.
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, because they didn't really make much headway. The anti-trousers memes were too strong.
It was only when women had a reason of their own, en masse, to wear trousers - namely, working in the factories of the 2nd world war (or was it the 1st? - I can never remember) - that they suddenly realised how unsexual it had been all along. Previously they had associated trousers with masculinity, in the same way that skirts are currently asociated with femininity. Did Bloomer's advocacy have any effect on them at all?
PS. are you Iain of TCR?
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, because they didn't really make much headway. The anti-trousers memes were too strong.
It was only when women had a reason of their own, en masse, to wear trousers - namely, working in the factories of the 2nd world war (or was it the 1st? - I can never remember) - that they suddenly realised how unsexual it had been all along. Previously they had associated trousers with masculinity, in the same way that skirts are currently asociated with femininity. Did Bloomer's advocacy have any effect on them at all?
PS. are you Iain of TCR?
-
ChristopherJ
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:24 am
You are absolutely correct Steve. Sorry - I got a bit confused. I wasn't joking when I said "too much coffee".As it stands, it may be assumed that it means "with regard to clothing", although your comment is a fair one - to spell it out, to avoid confusion. Can you see how to word the sentence, so that it flows freely for the reader? I don't want it to sound geeky or pedantic.
I like your description as it stands. It's perfect. Short - to the point - and easy for anyone to understand.
I should have learned how to KISS years ago . . . Keep It Simple Stupid!
Anyhow - you don't sound at all geeky or pedantic. I think you have done a great job there in creating the MIS entry in Wiki - and I for one would like to express my thanks.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
In the light of Bob's comment on the "Fashion or Fetish?" thread -
http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/showpos ... ostcount=8
- I wonder if it would be possible to explain that in the article. Thus we would both address people's fears, and overcome them = progress?
I realise I am making a u-turn here
. Bob's explanation has allowed me to see new possibilities.
http://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/showpos ... ostcount=8
- I wonder if it would be possible to explain that in the article. Thus we would both address people's fears, and overcome them = progress?
I realise I am making a u-turn here
. Bob's explanation has allowed me to see new possibilities.I would prefer the article were filed under "Skirts for Men", rather than "Men in Skirts". It makes it clear that this is a fashion choice, not a lifestyle choice. Also, it emphasizes that the skirt is being adapted to the man, not vice versa. These men are no different than any other man.
I think "Men in Skirts" does us all a disfavor --- but since it's what people think of first, it should have a simple entry containing "see Skirts for Men".
I think "Men in Skirts" does us all a disfavor --- but since it's what people think of first, it should have a simple entry containing "see Skirts for Men".
Gosh I have never thought of the difference in those 2 phrases -- but it's a very big difference.....Bob wrote:I would prefer the article were filed under "Skirts for Men", rather than "Men in Skirts". It makes it clear that this is a fashion choice, not a lifestyle choice. Also, it emphasizes that the skirt is being adapted to the man, not vice versa. These men are no different than any other man.
I think "Men in Skirts" does us all a disfavor --- but since it's what people think of first, it should have a simple entry containing "see Skirts for Men".