skirtcafe.org

Talk about hyper inflation in Hungary - on 1 January 1927 the exchange rate was Hungarian 5.26 Pengő for US$1.00.

However in 31 July 1946 the exchange rate was 4.6 E 29 Pengő for US$1.00.

That is much larger than Avogadro's number which is 6.022 E 23.

John

crfriend wrote:

JohnH wrote:Worth and price mean roughly the same thing. Then why are priceless and worthless opposites?

That's a nice try, but worth and price sometimes aren't even tangentially related.

"A cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde

JohnH wrote:Talk about hyper inflation in Hungary - on 1 January 1927 the exchange rate was Hungarian 5.26 Pengő for US$1.00.

However in 31 July 1946 the exchange rate was 4.6 E 29 Pengő for US$1.00.

That is much larger than Avogadro's number which is 6.022 E 23.

John

That's serious inflation. I went to Argentina the first time in 1988. The exchange rate was 17 Australes to the dollar (US). When I returned in 1991, the exchange rate was 7000 Australes to the dollar. The next year Menem changed the currency and pegged the new peso to the dollar. It had a positive short term effect but drove up unemployment eventually.

dlln,

I agree with n in that if I refused to go out with MOH if she wore trousers then she would just go out without me! And I'd never hear the last of it! So, no, I don't ever want to go there.

The English language is so rich and full of anomalies isn't it?

JeffB1959 wrote:

Derek Plattis wrote:That way the femininity doesn't get out of hand, I don't completely lose my masculine identity and there can be no question of me trying to dress like a woman.

Speaking just for myself, I don't give a damn if the femininity "gets out of hand". I'm secure enough in my masculinity, no matter how I'm dressed. I'll always be a man, regardless of if I'm wearing women's clothes.

It really would be nice if the mixing of menswear and womenswear could take place however one wishes, WITHOUT the labeling of masculine or feminine. Labeling is a trap, a prejudice, that can add unpleasantness, discord, suspicion, contempt, and other emotions to the simple act of wearing clothes of one's choice.

In a perfect world, anyone could wear anything (or nothing… but let's leave naturism out of the discussion). Men and women could each choose where on the male-female spectrum they would like their image to be. But in the real world, those with unusual personal expressions get labeled. If that is OK, fine; if not OK, you have to adjust your expression to conform more to expectations ("the norm"). Those who wear the same kind of standard clothes can be categorized: "He's the guy who always wears black", or "He's the guy who always wears goofy T-shirts". But for the skirt wearer, "He's the guy who always wears skirts" can indeed by labeled by the unenlightened as "He's a cross-dresser" (or even "He's gay").

A skirter can choose skirts anywhere along the gradient from quite masculine kilts to frilly feminine skirts, according to his own comfort level. And he can choose the rest of his outfit the same way. He can send a message ranging from "I'm quite masculine and I enjoy wearing a skirt" to "I'm a guy who likes to wear a very feminine outfit". The former is the skirting movement, the latter is freestyle fashion.

In my opinion, the border between Freestyle Fashion and Cross-Dressing is what one does above the neck. Attempting to appear as female, with altering hair, face, and even voice, is not what this forum is about. But just wearing womenswear doesn't make you a cross-dresser, regardless of the chance that you might get labeled that way.

Personally, I usually enjoy wearing a skirt with an otherwise male outfit, because I think that better serves the skirting movement by making the simple statement that "guys can wear skirts". But I'm also a strong supporter of fashion freedom because I think people should be able to wear what makes them happy. So I support both sentiments quoted above. Each of us, in his own way, is helping change society's notions of what "should" or "should not" be worn.

Ive been asked the "gay" question by a member of my family and only one total stranger. I think that both were equally confused when I answered in the negative. In my past, I have had many close aquaintances who just happened to be attracted to their own sex. From the male contingent, I doubt that any one of them would have even considered wearing a skirt, publically or privately.
I've done the "T.V.", so I speak from experience.
I know that if I had been able to express my own clothing choices earlier I might have avoided some problems later in life.
To cut a long story short, I don't pretend to be something I'm not, my clothing does not define my gender or my sexuality.
The good thing is, I'm now free to mix the proverbial "aisles" however, I choose with all the potential pitfalls that entails.
Steve.

skirtingtheissue wrote:It really would be nice if the mixing of menswear and womenswear could take place however one wishes, WITHOUT the labeling of masculine or feminine. Labeling is a trap, a prejudice, that can add unpleasantness, discord, suspicion, contempt, and other emotions to the simple act of wearing clothes of one's choice.

This probably goes on more than anyone really notices. For instance, I've worn several blouses that "came from across the aisle" at my new workplace and nobody's batted an eyelash or even let on that "something was awry". That would not be the case with a skirt, however, as a skirt is quite obvious indeed.

Since I also have very long hair, I usually tie it back at work, and that involves elastics and bows, some of which are quite fancy indeed. I have picked up comments on those -- positive ones!

skirtingtheissue wrote: In my opinion, the border between Freestyle Fashion and Cross-Dressing is what one does above the neck. Attempting to appear as female, with altering hair, face, and even voice, is not what this forum is about. But just wearing womenswear doesn't make you a cross-dresser, regardless of the chance that you might get labeled that way.

In my case - I have long hair, wear light makeup, and have breasts and hips. However, I sure as hell don't have a feminine voice (I sing basso profundo) and I will not attempt to speak like a woman.

John

skirtingtheissue wrote:In my opinion, the border between Freestyle Fashion and Cross-Dressing is what one does above the neck. Attempting to appear as female, with altering hair, face, and even voice, is not what this forum is about. But just wearing womenswear doesn't make you a cross-dresser, regardless of the chance that you might get labeled that way.

I couldn't agree more! I'm sure I've left people wondering if I'm a crossdresser when they see me because it's not nearly enough to just wear a skirt as I pair same with women's tops, shoes (including heels), even a handbag. But I wear such clothes ONLY as a male, I make no effort to hide the fact that I'm a man who openly wears women's clothes from head to toe. More importantly, I take great pride in that as I make damn sure I look my very best when out in public dressed the way I like. So, yes, that makes me a fashion freestyler, and I'm PROUD of that particular label.

I think its time to revisit some serious definitions here! - It's old hat to most people here but here goes anyway - this is bound to cause a stir!

1. Any one wearing any clothes designed for or usually associated with the opposite sex is, by definition, a cross-dressing.

2. Cross-dresser and transvestite mean the same thing.They are synonymous.

If I put on a skirt, I am cross-dressing. This applies whether it is one garment or a whole outfit with wig, false boobs and the rest.

What is important here is the matter of degree - the level we wish to go to and our reasons for doing it. Like most on this contributors to this site, I wear skirts whenever I feel I can. I love the feel of a long full skirts flapping round my legs and I feel more relaxed. I also like blouses - preferably with long full sleeves and padded shoulders. I wear women's underwear most of the time - because it is lighter, softer and more comfortable. I have several pairs of women's shoes and boots - (all UK size 11) - including some heels up to about 3 inches. I like wearing women's perfumes just because I like the smell - men are supposed to I think. I also love long silky scarves. However, I NEVER wear all this gear at the same time in public. I often wear along skirt but otherwise dress completely male. I wish to always show that I am a man who thinks all clothing should be freely available to both sexes without prejudice. Men should have the full range of attire to choose from in the same way that women have.
That, I guess, is free styling but in our current climate of opinion it is still cross-dressing. One day, probably not in my life time, my philosophy may be widely accepted and so it will no longer be seen as cross-dressing.

I am heterosexual male, happily married with a lovely daughter and have no wish to change any of those things.

Everyone should be able to wear whatever makes them feel good. My favourite ancient quote is "First know who you are and then adorn yourself accordingly!" - some ancient Greek or other said that - I'll look it up and give you all the reference.

This post clears it up for me! I hope it helps others too.

Keep skirting - or whatever rocks your boats!

Derek

Derek Plattis wrote:I think its time to revisit some serious definitions here! - It's old hat to most people here but here goes anyway - this is bound to cause a stir!

1. Any one wearing any clothes designed for or usually associated with the opposite sex is, by definition, a cross-dressing.

2. Cross-dresser and transvestite mean the same thing.They are synonymous.

If I put on a skirt, I am cross-dressing. This applies whether it is one garment or a whole outfit with wig, false boobs and the rest.

I think it's time to burst a bubble here.

If we believe in true equality between the sexes, the term "crossdressing" and it's pseudoscholarly synonym "transvestite" can fundamentally have no meaning. They have meaning now, and are grossly unequally applied to men -- to the point of it getting labeled a "disorder" when it is never applied to women (who get applauded for it). The implication here is that women are the inferior sex and a man demeans himself by adopting the inferior style, and inversely that a woman enhances her status in the world by adopting men's styles. It's utter rubbish -- and we all know it, yet we somehow persist in using the same terms, and in so doing, perpetuate the notion.

It's time to move on. Let's get our heads out of the late 19th and 20th century mindset and forge a better one. One where men and women stand alongside one another -- proudly -- and not with the subservient "little woman" following along several steps behind the man. This thinking will, in the long term, have at least a couple of effects:

• It will boost the esteem and respect held for women which can only benefit everybody,
• It will remove the lopsided notion of "crossdressing" once and for all -- and, again, everybody wins, and
• It'll put a big stick in the psychiatric profession's eye when it comes to what's a "disorder" or not.

All three of those points above are sore spots for me, and the latter two are very probably sore spots for most of the guys here because they know that "they're being judged" -- all the time, and in all circumstances -- and likely that judgment, if it's not neutral or non-existent, will be negative although in all probability never spoken. I, for one, detest the notion that I can be clinically diagnosed with a "disorder" -- that somebody thinks I am "broken" or "deranged" -- simply because I put on a skirt (it doesn't matter whether it's a skirt made for guys because those clearly do not exist, and why would a guy want to debase himself by dressing as an inferior).

So, to take a cue from some grand-masters of thought control: Language has power -- words have power. To define the language and the vocabulary is to, in the long term, define the thought process. If we object to the term "crossdresser" for any reason, why not expunge it from our vocabulary. If we believe that women are our equals, we'd better "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk"; jettisoning "crossdresser" would be a good start in that as well, because each and every time we use the term we spread negativity and disparage our sisters. Just don't use it, and if somebody uses it on you gently correct him (or her); point up the inequality matter, that he's denigrating his wife/mother/sister or that she is denigrating her entire sex (if the detractor is a woman) by repeating the statement that women are inferior.

Yes, this takes a new way of looking at things, and some of us -- even here -- may not be able to deal with that, at least in the short term.

To sum things up, the final arbiter of how a guy's outfit looks is how we perceive it. If it looks good, then that's a win; if it looks ghastly or otherwise somehow shocking it doesn't. The latter piece there might be interesting as a thought experiment to figure out precisely why revulsion or shock set in -- and possibly enlightening as well.

crfriend wrote: To sum things up, the final arbiter of how a guy's outfit looks is how we perceive it. If it looks good, then that's a win; if it looks ghastly or otherwise somehow shocking it doesn't. The latter piece there might be interesting as a thought experiment to figure out precisely why revulsion or shock set in -- and possibly enlightening as well.

I certainly agree. I would much prefer to see a dude dolled up wearing makeup, dress, and heels than the terrible practice of young men dangling their basket ball shorts low down on their behinds.

Carl, you hit the nail on the head with your posting. I really appreciated it.

John

Yep : I knew it would cause a stir. However, if we can take the emotive implications out of the words "cross-dresser" and "transvestite" and treat them only as words - drop all the ridiculous stigma which has become attached to them and ignore the social and hierarchical implications of 'women dressing up' and 'men dressing down' we are left with two words which fundamentally mean the same thing and describe what we all do here.

I fully agree that in a more enlightened world / age, both these words would be redundant - I thought I made that clear in my post above this one.

Personally, I wear women's clothes in a very masculine way ( I do not try to look like a woman nor do I wish to), and this brings great relaxation and relief from stress. As long as I understand myself, I will dress accordingly and those two words will not affect me.

I'm off out to a pub in a full length green suede effect skirt tonight - and I shall be nervous at first but expect to relax and unwind there as the evening goes on.

Happy skirting!

Derek

Derek Plattis wrote: I'm off out to a pub in a full length green suede effect skirt tonight - and I shall be nervous at first but expect to relax and unwind there as the evening goes on.

Happy skirting!

Derek

a full length green suede effect skirt sounds like a skirt that I would like to have.
were did you get it?

Derek Plattis wrote:I knew it would cause a stir. However, if we can take the emotive implications out of the words "cross-dresser" and "transvestite" and treat them only as words - drop all the ridiculous stigma which has become attached to them and ignore the social and hierarchical implications of 'women dressing up' and 'men dressing down' we are left with two words which fundamentally mean the same thing and describe what we all do here.

Unfortunately, we tend to be creatures of the cultures in which we were reared and it's darned tough to buck that -- even though it sorely needs bucking. My thrust is that the terms -- both of them -- are derogatory at best and inflammatory at worst. We should stop using them, for using them confers credence unto them.

As near as I can tell, the world we'd like to see could well lack the terms "menswear" and "womenswear". It would certainly be a more equal and respectful world, and it certainly wouldn't slag off on people who dress nicely in whatever style suits their fancy -- especially by slamming one sex and not the other when arbitrary "lines" get crossed.

If we are going to try to convince ourselves just because we put on one -- no matter how tiny -- object of "women's clothing" (there's that implied pejorative again) we're "crossdressing" (there's another insult -- to the individual it was addressed to and all the women in the room) is insanity. We're trying to rise above that ridiculousness, hopefully once and for all. Shackling ourselves to the terms is like going for a swim with a millstone tied 'round one's neck.

I fully agree that in a more enlightened world / age, both these words would be redundant - I thought I made that clear in my post above this one.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Take that step.

Personally, I wear women's clothes in a very masculine way ( I do not try to look like a woman nor do I wish to), and this brings great relaxation and relief from stress. As long as I understand myself, I will dress accordingly and those two words will not affect me.

That's the overall thrust, to varying degrees, of the entire community here. The point I am trying to make is that using those words demeans not only the target but also roughly half the population.

I'm off out to a pub in a full length green suede effect skirt tonight - and I shall be nervous at first but expect to relax and unwind there as the evening goes on.

Good on ya! Sometimes the view from the edge can be exhilarating.