skirtcafe.org

The problem I can see is that I would need a Large in chest ( 42" chest ) and a Small in the skirt ( 34" waist ). Is that possible? The price is way out of my league as well but the look is good.

Yes Sinned,

I would have the same problem - 40" chest size and 34" waist - and of course a tad costly as well.

Ssor

Maybe Greeks are that shape. I'm certainly not! I've still got what tailors call a 'ten inch drop', i.e. 43" over 33".

My eldest married a Greek Cypriot lass in a village high up near the Trudos in Cyprus and the church was equipped with individual pews which 'accommodated' standing people by having arms where the elbows should be . Well mine were about 6" too low for me and standing for an eternity during the two hour service was excruciating for someone my height.

T.

I'd doubt that, for a great many nations these days, that there is a truly "typical" stature.
Tom, the church you visited in Cyprus was probably designed with an exceptionally "local" congregation in mind.
I've yet to visit a "kirk" with pews which actually offer anything more than a modicum of comfort, the idea of being able to sleep through a sermon is totally foreign to me.
Now back to the thread and it's the idea of fusing the traditional masculine and feminine elements of attire that I find attractive.
The kilt, the fustanella are "skirts for men" and their wearing is largely "proscribed" , but all is open to change and evolution. For the kilt that has already happened, I'm not so sure of the fustanella.
It only takes some nerve to challenge the "norms" ,and we are already doing that, so try it and see! If it doesn't quite work, try something else, keep thinking, keep the idea alive and growing.
As for the legwear, it should be your choice pure and simple, nought wrong with hairy legs in their right place. I choose tights because that's my easiest option at the moment.
Steve.

STEVIE wrote:Now back to the thread and it's the idea of fusing the traditional masculine and feminine elements of attire that I find attractive.

This is a recurring theme with me, and I actively try to devise ways that I can adapt things in a manners that will look good on my frame. This has led to some very interesting -- and successful -- experiments and outings, including the pairing of a Victorian-era-pattern petticoat with a thoroughly modern "bohemian" tiered skirt (which is actually the rig I wore to dinner tonight following a thoroughly foul day fighting with the machinery at home). In short, it seems the be what we make of it and whether we can make it look believable or not.

The kilt, the fustanella are "skirts for men" and their wearing is largely "proscribed" , but all is open to change and evolution. For the kilt that has already happened, I'm not so sure of the fustanella.

For "proscribed", do you really mean "prescribed", in which all rules, regulations, and whatnot must be adhered to? ("Proscribed" is properly meant to mean outright prohibited.)

Speaking specifically to the fuatanella rig, I like several things about it -- mainly the fact that it's a bit "frilly" (much moreso than The Kilt) and that it's typically worn with a puffy-sleeved shirt (which is a design I've always liked). Those factors alone give me much leeway with the design so long as its use is not as hidebound as The Kilt's use.

As for the legwear, it should be your choice pure and simple, nought wrong with hairy legs in their right place. I choose tights because that's my easiest option at the moment.

Hear, hear!

Whether this author wears tights or not is down primarily to what the local weather is doing at the moment and the overall look that the author wishes to project. If I'm after a "casual" presentation then it'll be bare legs; if I'm after a more formal look I'll go with tights, either sheer or opaque depending on circumstance.

I shave my legs because if I don't it looks like the moths have been after me -- and have done so since before I started wearing skirts mainly because I hated how my legs looked when "un-trousered" -- so sheers actually work fairly well on me. Other individuals' mileage will vary on this count, so keep that facet in mind.

With kilting we have seen spin off designs.

Found this youtube video on differences between the Albanian and Greek fustanellas...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nlCkk65yMg

Stv and crfrnd,

That's something I'm trying out at the moment. Women are really funny and strange but MOH seems to be in agreement with me wearing a top or two that she has given to me that either she had bought for herself ( and not worn ) or something she has deliberately bought for me. The latest one that I really like is made from black see-through material with long sleeves which are wider at the cuff and a deep slit from the throat to mid chest and a tie at the top. It's long, about knee length and has a long slit up each side. If it wasn't so see-through I could probably wear it as a dress. In style it's more like one that you would see from the olden days of the Robin Hood era but not so fancy or fluffy. The sleeves are slightly long but not irritatingly so. In researching the topic of tops I have seen a lot that are better described as unisex as, although they are marketed as women, I could really see me wearing them.

Caultron wrote:

Big and Bashful wrote:...I am certainly not going to do the tights thing, for me a skirt means no crotch and a sense of comfort and freedom, why would I then pull on a crotch and two tight legs?[...]

Same here. I keep searching for a pair of heavy opaque crotchless tights or leggings but no go. I can find heavy opaque or sheer crotchless but not the combination. And the prices are often sky-high.

I've considered cycling and running tights but I don't want a shiny Lycra look or brand names or other decorations -- just flat black. And none of local cycling or running shops say they'll have stock until the start of winter. I've tried Amazon but it's hard to tell whether the texture is shiny or matte, and $80-100 for a pair of tights seems excessive for the use I'd make of them.

Just don't wear under pants with it. It is a compromise to keep your leggs warm.

Sinned,
I started to "pen" a reply to your post and the thrust would have been simply to go for the look you described, at least to give it a try.
I hesitated to submit at the time but I'd stand by it with some caution. I still feel that we'll only make progress if we're prepared to give "looks" a try.
CR Friend is on the nail when he talks about believability and confidence being the key to acceptance. I'd also add that being comfortable in yourself is also a key ingredient.
I must say that I doubt that I'd wear the top as you described it simply because of my own "comfort zones".
I'd like to think that you could make this top work into an outfit and perhaps, we'll see it in pics and looks.
As a thought could the "see through" be put to good use, by simply using it as a top layer?
Steve.

STEVIE wrote:As a thought could the "see through" be put to good use, by simply using it as a top layer?

The notion of sheerness on tops can be a bit of a dicey one, but I'll submit this image which shows me with a "woman's" top and sheer sleeves with a long skirt and a waistcoat. What the image does not show is the tuxedo-style ruffling on the front of the blouse. I wore that blouse out the other day with a different skirt and nobody so much as batted an eyelash. I sometimes wonder how far off-the-wall I'd have to go for anybody to say anything.

CR Friend is on the nail when he talks about believability and confidence being the key to acceptance. I'd also add that being comfortable in yourself is also a key ingredient.

Thank you for that, kind sir.

I'll posit that 90+% of the game is down to confidence of presentation and the immediate believability of any rig in question. That's why I tend to spend some time in front of a camera with new or experimental looks before inflicting them on the general public. It gives me an understanding of the overall look (from an unbiased perspective, which a mirror cannot do) that is second-to-none and gives me further ideas as to how a look could be improved upon. I fully understand that every time I step out into public wearing a skirt I'm an outlier -- the trick, for me, is to get the onlooker to grasp the style before even necessarily noticing that it involves a skirt.

Carl,
I think your waistcoat goes a long way to make that particular rig (most recent photo) believable, without it, I think the outfit would leave a very different impression -- of course, the beard helps too!

I have exactly the opposite problem from a small waist and a large chest. I have more of a barrel shape -- 40 to 42 inch chest, a very slight drop just under my ribs (maybe 38 to 40), then a huge gut that's the result of 50 years of pizza and ice cream... depending on how much liquid I'm carrying at any given time and how successful my eternal diet goes, it might be 40 to 46 inches around.

The result is that dresses never fit properly. If I get something that fits my chest, the waist won't fit around me; if I get something big enough for my waist, the chest flaps around like a circus tent on a flagpole. I *always* have to take parts in and let parts out.

Don't even get me started about sleeves and leg length. Apparently women's arms and legs are six inches shorter than on men, because stuff that looks great on the models in the catalog with cuffs that fit nicely around their wrists comes just below my elbows. Likewise, even though I'm only 5'10", pants/skirts/dresses that are ankle length on the models fall just below my knees.

Hi Ralph,
Welcome to the cafe.
If it's any consolation, I've never found a dress that I felt really comfortable in. Apart from Jack and John, I've a feeling that most of the guys here would probably concur.
Except, that is, for a 60s style pinafore that you could see in my earliest pics and looks efforts. That one has never seen the light of day in real life but I'm considering it. There seems to be a current trend toward the "retro", perhaps I could give that a more radical twist.
Steve.

Yes, you are right. Only very view dresses fit good and many dresses must be adapted to look well.