skirtcafe.org

Ok, so it may not be wearing a skirt, but do you think this could actually happen?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -boys.html

Judging by the Daily Wail's readership - 100% no on the first page when I looked - it won't be a big trend on a high street anywhere near you. But anything that puts men into what is generally considered to be women's clothing has to be good for us. It's all about breaking down barriers.

Of course the obvious answer to the question in the article about your wallet is "in your skirt pocket"!

Myself and plenty of men I know wear jeggings (jeans-style leggings). They don't sell them for men, but if you buy a women's pair they look just like men's skinny jeans but are a million times more comfortable.

I don't see why every time something like this happens, people have to invent a new word. Leggings were worn by men before women. Other examples of this stupid trend are 'manscara' instead of mascara, 'guyliner' instead of eyeliner, 'murse' instead of purse and most ridiculously, 'manbag' instead of handbag or just bag! It's as if all these things are inherently female and to make them male they have to have either a name change or the word 'man' put in front of them.

Not for me.
I can't say I like the sight of women in the street showing too much of their lower anatomy, albeit cloth-clad, so I won't be doing it myself.

I noticed in the Daily Mail pic that the men had placed theirs hands or scarf very strategically. How silly we would look walking around with our hands on our crotch like that, and how discourteous if we did not cover those outlines. I think clothes were invented not only for warmth, but to allow us to concentrate on hunting and gathering, and take our minds off reproduction. Since safe contraception has been invented and generalized, there has been a firm tendency toward the unmasking of everything.

By the way, men's tights, thus labeled, with a fly, have long been available in Germany and probably in other countries further north too.

Martin

Totally ridiculous to my eyes. Not only do they look like a pair of long johns that shrank in the wash, but they also would be so restrictive that I would feel both uncomfortable and far more embarrased than at ANY time I have worn a skirt.

I've got 2 pair of leggings (or tights) that I had for over 20 years. These were made for runners in cold weather. I should dig them out and give them a try.

Terrible word, and not too good a look. A skirt over them would improve the situation.

skirtingtheissue wrote:Terrible word, and not too good a look. A skirt over them would improve the situation.

I totally agree and that would solve the problem of an embarassing outline, too, and if you have a skirt with pocket(s), also solve where to stash your wallet (unless you carry a purse/bag/"manbag" *ugh*) with your kilt/skirt, which I usually do. Also in winter I'd think they'd sure make a kilt/skirt warmer! AND hide my hairy legs, though I probably wouldn't care to wear them in summer...just thinking out loud...

I've just had delivery of a very fine new tailor-made skirt in biscuit/beige that is A-line with pleats to the front & back, but also two very decent slash pockets exactly where I like 'em. It falls 20" from the (33") waist
finishing some 5" above my knee. This is short without being 'mini', and I like it. In this ambient temperature I'll be wearing thick tights under it, for sure.

Photo coming asap.

T.

Then the "meggings" (lol) would be perfect for you, Mr. Kirbstone!

I was in Chicago in February a couple of years ago. 29 degrees. Wore an angle length heavy canvas skirt with a slip underneath. It worked fine, I was warm - BUT - as I told my wife: "Much colder, and I'd have to add some leggings, at least on my lower legs.".

Leggings for the lower legs, also known as socks?

So much for 'Meggings' and 'Mights'. Real men keep a little air circulating up there where it matters, so I'm sticking to my skirt, stockings and suspenders. I'm treating myself to some winter grade 70 - 100 denier stockings to keep a bit warmer, but also for a laugh a couple of pairs of Italian 20 denier with seams. Sorry chaps, that's stepping out, but I'm not cross-dressing. As for tights and pantyhose, see my previous posts.
Shame the Waily Dail has closed its Blog on this, most seemed agin it, but what do you expect from that bastion of pseudo middle-class conservatism!
Seasons Greetings 2012

As for Gary Mugs & Such's recommendation that I invest in mxxxings (not a word I care for) I visited a shop yesterday that sells tights in opaque colours up to 300 denier, the thicker ones being called 'Boot tights' which is a far better unisex description
Although these are aimed at the young female tights & short shorts brigade they're pretty useful under anything else in this climate. Mind you, to keep them up tight to the crotch for a whole day I for one have to use strong 'control' pxxties.
They're so snug & warm that they only need 'hiding' for modesty's sake.

T.

Kirbstone wrote:I visited a shop yesterday that sells tights in opaque colours up to 300 denier, the thicker ones being called 'Boot tights' which is a far better unisex description ... Mind you, to keep them up tight to the crotch for a whole day ...

Why would you want to do that? Wouldn't you rather have some dangle room?