Sure I realize many are making an effort but far more willing to knock that effort in my experiencecrfriend wrote:It's being worked on. In the admins' copious free time, that is. There is full intent to graft a Wiki onto SkirtCafe where well thought out and carefully written articles can be posted and refined to professional-level standards. We just haven't got all the infrastructure in place yet.Yes I'm because I'm fed up of singing alone & getting kicked by many around these parts from doing so.We need to start writing accessible articles about these issues for the wider public.
We are All Crossdressers!
-
ziggy_encaoua
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:17 pm
- Location: Surrey UK
- Contact:
My wife says I’m a crossdresser, although she freely agrees that women do it all the time and they don’t get associated with the term. All I know is I’m happy wearing a skirt and my wife is also happy with this. She has also said that she wouldn’t mind the neighbours seeing me out in the garden wearing a sarong.
Bryan
Bryan
Um hum, I've seen the link, and think that he has done a wonderful job, he is actually quite a good looker, better even than some women. As to his activities, well let's not talk about that. Yes, that is possibly the image many people have about cross dressers. And it is very correct to say that only that image is wrong. ( cross dressing, whatever that really is is not wrong, misconduct is. ) But when there are no other terms, explanations for what people see, then that is our fate. So what are we, all of us waiting for? We, by discussion and debating can do our part in defining things as they should be. By the way, there's nothing wrong with what the person in the clip was, but it must be named correctly, and also any misconceptions about what you do when you are something or the other, should be adressed. As for sexual activity, then I think what we now call straight, might be in practice something very different. Meaning, to be a travestite or a homo or other person, says absolutely nothing about your sexual ways and Completely nothing about your conduct, of which the conduct will undoubtedly be negative with some names used, which is not just.ziggy_encaoua wrote:The dictionary definition of crossdressing is…
To dress in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex
Now if you’re strict with this definition that makes just about every female who wears trousers a crossdresser. But then that depends on your definition on what constitutes male & female clothing? Its society at large which makes these kind of definitions not us because most of us here want clothing to be gender neutral or gender blind. Those who of us though consider still considers themselves crossdressers should be aware that society at large attaches fetishistic connotations to the term crossdressing & the average image of a crossdresser is something like this http://www.tvmistressmaria.com/.
Also, after reading this, it came to mind, that "women's fit" would be very suitable for garments made for the standard women's figure, as apposed to the men's figure. That way there would be less "discrimination" if any, when wearing clothes of a mutual, neutral fit. And even then, look at the shape of a hundred naked people next to each other, no one's the same, yet we have to wear clothing made in the thousands to one shape. We have to fit in the clothing, but it should be the other way round. Then again, if your figure is suitable to the shape which certain clothes are made, then they are made for you, which implies that when a man has a body shape which matches that of the shape from particular "women's" garments, then those clothes were made ( to fit ) for HIM.
I'm not talking about if you want to wear that item, or if you feel happy in it. Of course if you wanted to wear it, by all means. So the whole way clothing is described is outdated and needs an overhall, it's up to us, the ones who realise that to stimulate that change. Just like Feminine, and masculine, they don't describe things for men or women, they describe the soort of clothing, for both men and women. for example, women can wear both feminine and masculine clothing without being anything but the same woman they were before. This goes for men as well. Only when we hear the word feminine for men, up comes the suggestion which was stamped into our unconciuos minds that it is wrong, or that men who go that way, are somehow not "real" men any more, and are to be shunned. Pure noncense. But we do think along those lines, and must work at that also, to put new true meaning to those words. As long as the meaning of such words stays, in our educated eyes, the same as it was prior to men wearing skirts, and dressing themselves more freely, thinking more freely, then we will also keep misunderstanding each other here in thes forums, because the meaning of those words can differ so much.
It is really an very important issue to update many words and their meaning to today's realities.
Peter v.
A man is the same man in a pair of pants or a skirt. It is only the way people look at him that makes the difference.
There are new names being given to men wearing anything other than pants, what a nonsense simply open the fashion doors to men wearing other, more things than the average bloke. POINT.
If you wear denim trousers what soort of man are you?
If you wear shorts in the summer, what soort of man are you?
If you wear a skirt what soort of man are you?
All simply a man.
What is different about you? Nothing.
There is no talk of a sexual change, bodily or preferance.
People are most often categorised by sex or sexual preferance.
Are you a woman (sexual orientation to the body)
Are you a man (sexual orientation to body)
Are you hetero both woman and man, (sexual orientation to preference of partner)
Are you homo or lesbo, (sexual orientation to preference of partner) etc..
Therefore what are you if you wear skirts or trousers?
Simply the same people as you always were.
And if people know what kind of sexual preference you have, then they can name you by it. But it has nothing to do with what you wear.
Are you the neighbour, then you are the neighbour. The man who lives next door. "he is hetero / gay/ travestite / on and on. How would you call your neighbour, "neighbour "or "the hetero man next door". I would say neighbour. But no matter what clothes you wear, be it a three piece suit, shorts bathrobe or a skirt, you are always the man next door.
Why then should there be any discusion even about how "we " should be named"What's differen about US? We wear pants and skirts, so what? Men who wear shorts are men, men who wear swimming trunks are men, men who wear hats are men, so we are also just men. even men wearing skirts are still jiust men. Not even Freestylers, unless the discussion is about fashion, so how do you call women who wear mostly denim pants, or men who wear mostly three piece suits, they must then also be named.
Freestyling is what I call wearing other clothing than is normally worn by the mass at the moment.
It is not necessary how those people must be called, but how that audacity to wear something different is called is something else. Thus the men's fashion must be widened, e.g. better appropriate clothing, like men's blouses, pullovers tailored for men, instead of mail bags that are made for the masses of overweight men, and every man has to accept.
You cannot base all clothing styling for every man on the heaviest men only. Do you know what female is? Accentuating the body lines. More fine substances, vulnerable materials are possible,. Men tend to have very functional clothing as if they are always ready to go to a war or do dirty jobs that require sturdy functional clothing. Women don't have that kind of fashion restriction, and wear everything that can hang on a body, which is why they have such wonerful clothing, and so much choice.
Men shy away from the word feminine, but it does not specifically refer to women, but to a style. being softer, less functional, more expressive and so on. Much more than men's clothing is. And so men wearing skirts are often shy of femme skirts, but they are just very expressional very nice garments, in very many styles, colours and patterns. Wearing them doesn't make you less a man, but makes you a more colourful person, no it shows how colourful you really are, but until now was affraid to show.
If you are colourful, then show it. We are used to hiding practically all emotions and hiding who we really are in the daily men's world. It stinks.
By wearing skirts the beginning is made, but for those who have expressional energy let it loose, and wear skirts and clothing that suits you. By wearing skirts you have broken with the clan of men hiding their true selves ( where applicable).
There should be a re schooling campaigne, to correct mis understanding about what men wear and what men then are to get out of the impase that we seem to be stuck in. Once there is a better public understanding then more men can come out of the closet and wear clothing that suits them.
Men's clothing is up to now very one sided, restrictive. Wearing skirts makes change possible.
Peter v.
If you wear denim trousers what soort of man are you?
If you wear shorts in the summer, what soort of man are you?
If you wear a skirt what soort of man are you?
All simply a man.
What is different about you? Nothing.
There is no talk of a sexual change, bodily or preferance.
People are most often categorised by sex or sexual preferance.
Are you a woman (sexual orientation to the body)
Are you a man (sexual orientation to body)
Are you hetero both woman and man, (sexual orientation to preference of partner)
Are you homo or lesbo, (sexual orientation to preference of partner) etc..
Therefore what are you if you wear skirts or trousers?
Simply the same people as you always were.
And if people know what kind of sexual preference you have, then they can name you by it. But it has nothing to do with what you wear.
Are you the neighbour, then you are the neighbour. The man who lives next door. "he is hetero / gay/ travestite / on and on. How would you call your neighbour, "neighbour "or "the hetero man next door". I would say neighbour. But no matter what clothes you wear, be it a three piece suit, shorts bathrobe or a skirt, you are always the man next door.
Why then should there be any discusion even about how "we " should be named"What's differen about US? We wear pants and skirts, so what? Men who wear shorts are men, men who wear swimming trunks are men, men who wear hats are men, so we are also just men. even men wearing skirts are still jiust men. Not even Freestylers, unless the discussion is about fashion, so how do you call women who wear mostly denim pants, or men who wear mostly three piece suits, they must then also be named.
Freestyling is what I call wearing other clothing than is normally worn by the mass at the moment.
It is not necessary how those people must be called, but how that audacity to wear something different is called is something else. Thus the men's fashion must be widened, e.g. better appropriate clothing, like men's blouses, pullovers tailored for men, instead of mail bags that are made for the masses of overweight men, and every man has to accept.
You cannot base all clothing styling for every man on the heaviest men only. Do you know what female is? Accentuating the body lines. More fine substances, vulnerable materials are possible,. Men tend to have very functional clothing as if they are always ready to go to a war or do dirty jobs that require sturdy functional clothing. Women don't have that kind of fashion restriction, and wear everything that can hang on a body, which is why they have such wonerful clothing, and so much choice.
Men shy away from the word feminine, but it does not specifically refer to women, but to a style. being softer, less functional, more expressive and so on. Much more than men's clothing is. And so men wearing skirts are often shy of femme skirts, but they are just very expressional very nice garments, in very many styles, colours and patterns. Wearing them doesn't make you less a man, but makes you a more colourful person, no it shows how colourful you really are, but until now was affraid to show.
If you are colourful, then show it. We are used to hiding practically all emotions and hiding who we really are in the daily men's world. It stinks.
By wearing skirts the beginning is made, but for those who have expressional energy let it loose, and wear skirts and clothing that suits you. By wearing skirts you have broken with the clan of men hiding their true selves ( where applicable).
There should be a re schooling campaigne, to correct mis understanding about what men wear and what men then are to get out of the impase that we seem to be stuck in. Once there is a better public understanding then more men can come out of the closet and wear clothing that suits them.
Men's clothing is up to now very one sided, restrictive. Wearing skirts makes change possible.
Peter v.
A man is the same man in a pair of pants or a skirt. It is only the way people look at him that makes the difference.
-
RokSterNL
- Member
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: The Hague/The South-West of The Netherlands
- Contact:
I think it is. But what is the matter ? Nothing. We are men with a duty and a vision. My question is, how can we rule this ? I mean, how can we create a new vision into fashionland. We have trendwatchers. Trendwatchers follow the new things they see in public. When there will be enough men in skirt on the street, it will be a sign, hey there is something really changed.
We are trendsetters. We are the source for trendwatchers to bring new fashion into the stores. But when there will be too few men in skirts or something else it won't happen, at this time and about 50 years.
Who can tell me, how can we give supply to the fashiondesigners and the trendwatchers. By wearing skirts ect. that won't help us.
When you have a good idea, write it down here.
Greetings from RokSterNL
We are trendsetters. We are the source for trendwatchers to bring new fashion into the stores. But when there will be too few men in skirts or something else it won't happen, at this time and about 50 years.
Who can tell me, how can we give supply to the fashiondesigners and the trendwatchers. By wearing skirts ect. that won't help us.
When you have a good idea, write it down here.
Greetings from RokSterNL
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
DavidsSkirts
- Active Member
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:55 pm
- Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW Australia
- Contact:
I'm not a cross-dresser :
I don't consider myself a cross-dresser;
and from what I've seen on this site over the last couple of years, I wouldn't call the majority of people here cross-dressers, though a significant minority could be described as such...
and from what I've seen on this site over the last couple of years, I wouldn't call the majority of people here cross-dressers, though a significant minority could be described as such...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
David...
Lake Macquarie (aka paradise..); NSW; Australia.
Lake Macquarie (aka paradise..); NSW; Australia.
-
SkirtedViking
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:08 pm
- Location: Europe
quit with stupid corss dressing term
As long a man is gender honest he is not a crossdresser no matter what he wears. And those of you who wear just skirts as non typical apparel should not consider the ones seeking more options crossdressers, because unless it is a kilt or a self-made skirt it is an item made for women. For some of you if a man wears something more than a skirt is a crossdresser. So what makes it different if you wear just a skirt and you are not a crossdresser but because I wear more non traditional things I am such.This is totally erroneous and non different from the way of thinking of the rest of the society that condemns men in skirts. No wigs,no fake boobs,no crossdressers!
There is nothing worse than double standard!
I would agree. Fundamental to the cross-dressing experience is the belief that the skirt feminizes a man who wears it, and that entering this altered state of existence is a way to access a "feminine side" that has value, but is outside the reach of men when not wearing a skirt. Cross-dressers don't want a sex change because they also value the things they feel they have access to as men, which they don't have access to when "dressed femme."
The Cafe is very different. We believe we're so manly that we masculize anything we wear. Even if what we're wearing looks feminine to you, we've still masculized it. We reject the idea that our gender identity is altered, even temporarily, by what we wear (or what we do).
Thus, the cross-dresser sees gender as performance, whereas at SkirtCafe, we see our gender as an indelible part of our inner being.
The Cafe is very different. We believe we're so manly that we masculize anything we wear. Even if what we're wearing looks feminine to you, we've still masculized it. We reject the idea that our gender identity is altered, even temporarily, by what we wear (or what we do).
Thus, the cross-dresser sees gender as performance, whereas at SkirtCafe, we see our gender as an indelible part of our inner being.
-
miniskirt07
- Active Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:09 pm
- Location: Scotland
have look:
Crossdressing >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing
Transvestism >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestite
Crossdressing >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing
Transvestism >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestite
Miniskirt, I'm not sure what you're asking us to have a look at. Wikipedia is not the gospel truth, and in this case most of us would agree its definition is incomplete.
A look at the picture under "cross-dressing" reveals a deeper truth than Wikipedia's text. It shows someone who looks nothing like any of our photos, along with the caption "A male cross-dressed as a female." Thus, Wikipedia has admitted that cross-dressing is not about wearing a skirt, but rather about taking on an alternate gender personna.
A look at the picture under "cross-dressing" reveals a deeper truth than Wikipedia's text. It shows someone who looks nothing like any of our photos, along with the caption "A male cross-dressed as a female." Thus, Wikipedia has admitted that cross-dressing is not about wearing a skirt, but rather about taking on an alternate gender personna.
-
miniskirt07
- Active Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:09 pm
- Location: Scotland
aye i agree with you...Bob wrote:Miniskirt, I'm not sure what you're asking us to have a look at. Wikipedia is not the gospel truth, and in this case most of us would agree its definition is incomplete.
A look at the picture under "cross-dressing" reveals a deeper truth than Wikipedia's text. It shows someone who looks nothing like any of our photos, along with the caption "A male cross-dressed as a female." Thus, Wikipedia has admitted that cross-dressing is not about wearing a skirt, but rather about taking on an alternate gender personna.
-
crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 15138
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
One of the things that Bob's driving at (correct me if I'm wrong, Bob) is that what we have here at SkirtCafe is entirely separate and distinct from "classical" crossdressing, and that at the moment there exist no words to accurately describe it.Bob wrote:A look at the picture under "cross-dressing" reveals a deeper truth than Wikipedia's text. It shows someone who looks nothing like any of our photos, along with the caption "A male cross-dressed as a female." Thus, Wikipedia has admitted that cross-dressing is not about wearing a skirt, but rather about taking on an alternate gender personna.
The latter facet of that is the most disturbing because it causes the "average Joe" to lump us in with the actors who partake in the classical form of crossdressing. Why this should be the case in such a wonderfully fluid language as English (vis, for instance, "arse antlers" (OK, that's Australian); it was on the Beeb the other day, I am not making this up) I cannot say, but certainly a language that can come up with "muffin top" (to keep it to a fashion theme) should be able to deal with the fact that some blokes just like to wear skirts and don't try to look like women wearing them.
I just guess that we're not just in the lead on the fashion front, we've also beat the language to the gate as well.
As far as this particular thread in concerned, I cringe every time it comes back up. It was originally posted, I believe, to incite anger and unrest here in the Cafe, and the original poster appears to have been a troll who has since moved on to other pastures.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
Departed Member
I cringe in horror at what, "arse antlers" , or "muffin top" refers to! I think I'm happier NOT knowing!
It's that word "skirt" that seems to be the problem. My 'other half' is, for some reason, reluctant to call my skirts, "skirts". Trouble is, that is the only accurate word - goodness, it even means the same in "English" AND "American"!crfriend wrote: I just guess that we're not just in the lead on the fashion front, we've also beat the language to the gate as well.
It was certainly placed with malicious intent. Why not just 'freeze' it''?crfriend wrote: As far as this particular thread in concerned, I cringe every time it comes back up. It was originally posted, I believe, to incite anger and unrest here in the Cafe, and the original poster appears to have been a troll who has since moved on to other pastures.
-
crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 15138
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Ask, and ye shall receive!I cringe in horror at what, "arse antlers" , or "muffin top" refers to! I think I'm happier NOT knowing!
Arse antlers: noun; a lower back tattoo, especially with portions that extend upwards and outwards from the center of the back. See also, "tramp stamp". (viz Wikipedia) We have the Aussies to blame for this one.
Muffin-top: noun; the exposed portion of flesh above a too-tight pair of trousers that bulges beyond the waistband. It turns out that this one's from Australian as well.
You don't suppose that there's a hot-spot of linguistic evolution down under, do you?
How ordinary.It's that word "skirt" that seems to be the problem. My 'other half' is, for some reason, reluctant to call my skirts, "skirts". Trouble is, that is the only accurate word - goodness, it even means the same in "English" AND "American"!
Actually, every time I see it pop back to the surface I think of doing so, but on the whole I think it's brought some rational discussion to the fore that otherwise might not have happened. You see, sometimes it takes the random Molotov cocktail to wake folks up, and this one, contentious as it may seem, has fostered some decent thoughts and posts.It was certainly placed with malicious intent. Why not just 'freeze' it''?
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
Departed Member
Excuse me while I vomit over the keyboard!!!!!!crfriend wrote: Ask, and ye shall receive!
Arse antlers: noun; a lower back tattoo, especially with portions that extend upwards and outwards from the center of the back. See also, "tramp stamp". (viz Wikipedia) We have the Aussies to blame for this one.
Muffin-top: noun; the exposed portion of flesh above a too-tight pair of trousers that bulges beyond the waistband. It turns out that this one's from Australian as well.
You don't suppose that there's a hot-spot of linguistic evolution down under, do you?
Yes, I take your point, Carl! That "gent"'s attempt to 'rock the boat' seemed to have ended rather abruptly when he fell out of it!crfriend wrote: Actually, every time I see it pop back to the surface I think of doing so, but on the whole I think it's brought some rational discussion to the fore that otherwise might not have happened. You see, sometimes it takes the random Molotov cocktail to wake folks up, and this one, contentious as it may seem, has fostered some decent thoughts and posts.