skirtcafe.org

So is it now - Oxford versus Webster ?
Still one common English language with different interpretations ?

How about we learn to agree to disagree and get back on topic for discussion. It will go back and forth all day on whose versions better defined. Personally I think that if you like your version then that's that.

Hi Jen,
M'Lady, many thanks, put the pedants in the place they so deserve.
I get your message to Moon so clearly and it resonates loudly.
I just wish that that my wife had your insight. In an ideal world, we'd make a foursome for dinner at a good pub.
Steve.

To continue with the original theme I came across this Huff article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-b/ ... 45534.html

What's new- women dressing up in men's clothes. It's an article that manages to tick the boxes of crossdressing, gender identity, fashion diversity and age discrimination as well.

Any indication of disapproval? Not a bit but more than a hint of approval and even, admiration! Hypocritical.

Sinned wrote:To continue with the original theme I came across this Huff article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-b/ ... 45534.html

What's new- women dressing up in men's clothes. It's an article that manages to tick the boxes of crossdressing, gender identity, fashion diversity and age discrimination as well.

Any indication of disapproval? Not a bit but more than a hint of approval and even, admiration! Hypocritical.

How odd! How many men could effectively model women's clothes? I wonder what it would do for women's fashion if we did? What would women think of the idea?
Also would men become better at modelling skirts, dresses etc. as we get older?

Derek

Hello Derek,

There are a few men who have modeled women's wear. At least one of them wound up transitioning.

Hi Dennis,

I don't see why you called that article hypocritical. The author stated that she thought it stunk that the only way women could continue modeling was to appear on the catwalk as men. Where's the hypocrisy?

I didn't mean to give the impression that the article was hypocritical - I actually thought that it was quite a good one. What I was trying to mark as hypocritical was the attitude that men wearing clothes cut for and marketed to women was not ok and discouraged but women wearing clothes cut for and marketed to men was ok and admired. If you allow one then you should allow the other. I apologise that I didn't make that clear.

Sinned wrote:To continue with the original theme I came across this Huff article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-b/ ... 45534.html

What's new- women dressing up in men's clothes. It's an article that manages to tick the boxes of crossdressing, gender identity, fashion diversity and age discrimination as well.

Any indication of disapproval? Not a bit but more than a hint of approval and even, admiration! Hypocritical.

Having looked at the link I came to the conclusion of Sinned as well. Thanks for clarifying 'hypocritical' but I took it to be the acceptance of modelling clothes and not the article per se.

Some men with slender body and facial characteristics could model what society still insist on privileged womens wear label for women but only a small minority. Likewise with women modelling male clothing for men. To succeed on behalf of the other gender both need to emulate the society expected appearance and characteristics. Yes mens hair would need a wig to assist but then most women unless have a society expected male hair style by choice in life would need to cut their hair short so on the whole neither gender could effective model for the other gender to easily. However, as society these days is so accepting with a complete andogynous clothing and appearance for women, unlike for men, then such articles will always be its OK when discussing women and fashion.

Society is very hypocrital in many aspects on gender, and yes for both genders. World would be far more settled if it dropped labels and stereotypes.

The emphasis shouldn't be on women looking men or men looking like women, but on both being able to wear the same things.

After taking in the readers digest version of this thread, all 18 pages of it. . . .

I think we would all agree WE CHOOSE to wear items of clothing to varying degrees that are primarily designed for women.

Which items we choose to wear are as varied as the membership. MOSTLY Skirts (hence the name!)

But we have members who embrace one or two items preferentally.

I am suprised at the offense some take at the term "Crossdresser" BUT I respect it. I suspect it comes down to attributing motive to our choices. I notice that some have done some amazing linguistic back flips to justify whatever terminology.

Conversely, when I discovered the term "Transvestite" to describe my behavior at age 14 in 1975, I accecpted it, Today, I don't care for it, due to flavor that it has gained due to the TRANSgender movement. The commonly accecpted phraseology is associated with people who consider themselves "Wrongly gendered" and identifying with the opposite sex. (please, lets not get into the semantics of this, as it is not my intention.)

I don't feel I am anything other than a man. . with and X and Y chromosome, twigs and berries and such. I am happy being male. I desire not to be other gendered, hence, I now reject TRANSvestite.

I agree with Moonshadow, They are his cloths, as my skirts, ballet flats, blouses, etc are MINE. . .but it does not change the fact they are primarily marketed to and worn by the sex know by "Double crossed" chromosomes ie XX. members of the human race. . ok, wymen, er, ah, women.

I would like to think I am leading a revolution to allow men to wear skirts, but the truth is. most men have little interest or desire to persue the issue of wearing skirts.

This seems to leave Crossdress. . or crossdressing. . I have no issue with the label and embrace it. When it comes up, yes, I "crossdress" that seems to quickly and easily convey the idea. I wear womens clothing but NOT makeup, or a wig. . .

Although there is an assumption in public that someone thusly dressed would be gay, as most all of us know, that is not the case. I would prefer people not make such assumptions and if asked, I will explain that I am not gay, or bi, and that clothing has little bearing on gender (talk about a can of worms again. . .. )

So, it comes back to WHY? Do we take offense to certain labels because they insinuate motive, or something else? For the average"dude" (non skirt or other wearing, stick to "manly stuff.) on the street, it is meaningless, For most biologically XX chromos, also meaningless. . . Why do we take such exception. . .

For the average self professed crossdresser, it started at adolescence with a sexual content, and by age 30 to 40 has little to do with sexual function or interest. Where does that leave them?

Perhaps "cis-gendered hetero trans-normative" May be the word(s)

I'll stick with Crossdresser. . .

whorton wrote: I wear womens clothing but NOT makeup, or a wig. . .
Although there is an assumption in public that someone thusly dressed would be gay, as most all of us know, that is not the case.

Hi,
I already commented on this on other forums.
In a particular situation, some individuals, in order to start a relationship, e.g. a romance, will dress to attract
- a specific individual they already know, or
- one of the individuals in a group they target (colleagues, clubbers, divorced mothers at the park, etc.)
- non specific inviduals (e.g. at a familly event)
Other individuals, already engaged in relationships, only dress in order to present a generally positive image of themselves.

Thus, other indivuals (targeted or general public) constantly, and thus unconsciously, analyse how you dress, compare it to previously established dress codes, and see whether they could grasp some hints on your intentions.

This yields 2 results:
1) Many of us freestylers, skirts or heels wearers as male, seldom have been in the position the general public is in front of us. Thus it is not easy to understand the reactions.
2) without previously established dress codes, people are amputated from an important thing. Presenting ourselves differently will of course disturb them, until a specific reference dress code is available and people can identify what they see.

whorton wrote:ly.

I would like to think I am leading a revolution to allow men to wear skirts, but the truth is. most men have little interest or desire to persue the issue of wearing skirts.

. .

A member came up with the term "Skirtonians"-people who like skirts/enjoy wearing skirts. Who seem to be a minority of either gender. As I see it, the point is to gain acceptance for the male Skirtonians.

I don't care if most men stick to the same-old/same-old.

whorton wrote:So, it comes back to WHY? Do we take offense to certain labels because they insinuate motive, or something else?

For me, the term suggests that skirts are for women only. I reject that. To me, I'm wearing clothing that is for anyone.

But maybe my attitude reflects in part the fact that this statement of yours suggests I don't fit the people you have in mind.

For the average self professed crossdresser, it started at adolescence with a sexual content,

I only started wearing skirts 3 years ago at the age of 61. Before that, I would never have dreamed of doing so.

Jim2 wrote:I only started wearing skirts 3 years ago at the age of 61. Before that, I would never have dreamed of doing so.

Jim2, You illustrate the folly of my comment well. . .

If we take 100% of the members of this fine bloggary establishment, what percentages will we find for the rational for wearing "Unique clothing?"

True freestyle fashionistia's? Late term fashionistia's? Adolescent onset crossdressers, Pre adolescent onset crossgeders, leaning towards feeling misgendered, Kilt wearers, due to Scottish descent, kilt wearers of non scottish descent, who identify as scottish, Amature Skirtorian, professional skirtorians, Ad men, Jazz musicians, pre medieval dressing specialists, cosplayers contemportary, cosplayers historical, or just, "I like wearing . . <pick non typical clothing item>

Its a losing battle. . .

How many of us really care if our motivation is known? Do we want to make it an issue?

Chomsky would have a field day with this.

whorton wrote:How many of us really care if our motivation is known? Do we want to make it an issue?

For me at least, that was an important question for the first 25 years or so. What on earth compelled me to prefer dresses? I desperately needed to know if I was a "woman born in a man's body", if I was gay, if it was a sexual fetish, if I was just batguano crazy, or what. It mattered in how I directed my life.

Only after getting married did at least the big questions become clear: I absolutely love being a man and having sex with a woman. Still, I was curious (less desperately so now that the important issues were settled) what drove this compulsion.

In the past 10 years, I've come to be less concerned with labels and motivations. It's not strictly "I prefer to wear dresses because they're comfortable" -- my choice of specific styles and fabrics tells me that much. So maybe the batguano crazy theory isn't too far off... it's as though I really am the hairy, frilly-dress-wearing nutcase Corporal Klinger pretended to be! But it no longer matters enough for me to pursue whatever buried psychological weirdness made me who I am. I yam, as the wise Popeye observed, what I yam. My wife can handle it, I'm happy with it, and it doesn't do anybody any harm.

Still not ready to fly my freak flag in public, though. Society may be getting more accepting of men in tasteful, age-appropriate contemporary women's fashion... but Sailor Bubba, not so much.