skirtcafe.org

oldsalt1 wrote:Woman's clothes are called such because that is how they are marked when you go to the store. When you buy something its yours. be it a house a car or a fork. it becomes a man's house car or fork.

Generally, I concur; however, if you buy something whilst in a relationship (with a woman) the truth of the matter is more along the lines of (from her perspective) "what's mine is mine, what's yours is ours". This is most often followed by the division of "common property" when the relationship goes south, leaving you with next to nothing (but the debt) in an act of court sanctioned theft and abuse (regardless of whether or not the court is actually involved.)

Some women can't seem to accept men in open ended garments. This can even include kilts; I have seen posts by husbands who's wives can't tolerate the sight of him in a kilt.

Derek Plattis, oldsalt1,

There is nothing wrong with anything either one of you said!

And while my personal labeling, and take on "gender" may differ ever so slightly (as pretty much laid out in my previous post), I pretty much agree with most of the rest of it! Certainly we are all rooted in the same pot.

Right on!

Disaffected.citizen wrote:Generally, I concur; however, if you buy something whilst in a relationship (with a woman) the truth of the matter is more along the lines of (from her perspective) "what's mine is mine, what's yours is ours". This is most often followed by the division of "common property" when the relationship goes south, leaving you with next to nothing (but the debt) in an act of court sanctioned theft and abuse (regardless of whether or not the court is actually involved.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume oldsalt wasn't really referring to domestic law. I think it's safe to say that even in the ugliest of divorces, most men get to keep their clothes, even if it is a skirt...

... Then again, most men don't wear skirts, and if they're the same size...

Boy to be a fly in that court room eh??

Grok wrote:Some women can't seem to accept men in open ended garments. This can even include kilts; I have seen posts by husbands who's wives can't tolerate the sight of him in a kilt.

And yet we're not supposed to say anything to them about their various liberations, including the wearing of trousers. I know, I know, I've got my own cross to bear with mom.

oldsalt1 wrote:Woman's clothes are called such because that is how they are marked when you go to the store. When you buy something its yours. be it a house a car or a fork. it becomes a man's house car or fork. When you buy a skirt and wear it it becomes a man's skirt period..

This is an age old argument on forums such as this but surely "women's" clothes are those designed for women. They are designed to fit women's bodies which by and large are a differen shape from men's. If I buy a blouse from a women's clothes store it is likely to have bust tucks in it and be made to fit a women's figure and to appeal to women's sense of fashion and style. Women's skirts are made with their wider hips in mind and so on. Although the women's clothes which I buy become mine when I buy them, they are still women's clothes. Therefore, when I wear them , I can be said to be cross-dressing.

Wearing wigs, makeup, false boobs and so on in order to try to look like a woman is what I understand to be transvestism.

Still, it's only discussion about words. If it feels good .... do it and don't worry about what it's called.

Derek

Derek Plattis wrote:Although the women's clothes which I buy become mine when I buy them, they are still women's clothes. Therefore, when I wear them , I can be said to be cross-dressing.

Wearing wigs, makeup, false boobs and so on in order to try to look like a woman is what I understand to be transvestism.

Actually, the terms "crossdresser" and "transvestite" mean precisely the same thing as do "crossdressing" and "transvestism". In both cases, the former term is the older one in common usage and the latter term was coined by somebody doing a thesis on the "phenomenon" and who needed a clinical-sounding term for it and so transposed the commonly-used terms into Latin. The bloke's name is likely available on-line someplace, and I may have seen it and promptly forgotten it. So, in spite of any nuance or spin we may try to put on them, the terms ultimately mean the same thing. Of course, since they are only ever applied in one direction, the entire notion could be, and likely should be, considered a fallacy.

Whilst I was looking this morning to refresh my memory on the difference between organza and chiffon I stumbled on a link which purported to be a size-converter such that women could look up equivalent sizes from the women's section to the men's aisle for jeans. That's never -- ever -- considered crossdressing/transvestism, is it. (Of course since I detest denim as a fabric, and jeans in particular, I didn't bother following it as I had better things to do at the time.)

Ultimately, if it fits well, wear it. If anybody gives you grief you can either argue your point or flip them the bird depending on your state of mind and your interpretation of how open their mind is. It's not even semantics.

I recall a comment to a kilting forum, regarding how women react to kilted men.

"Women either love it; or hate it".

Apparently, some individuals are a bit more open minded than others. Under the right circumstances, they can accept a man in an open ended garment (or at least a kilt).

crfriend wrote: ... a size-converter such that women could look up equivalent sizes from the women's section to the men's aisle for jeans.

Why on earth would they need one? Waist and inside leg measurements are enough.

And given the nonsense of women's sizes, how on earth could they rely on it?

Men's sizing is pretty straight forward - it is for the most part all in inches and does not have all the variables
of vanity that women's wear have odd-even-plus-petite and don't get me started on Asian sizing.

Oh and I am not CROSS about cross dressing - I have a good mental disposition and there is clothing enough
for all us to wear - some fitting better than others !

crfriend wrote: So, in spite of any nuance or spin we may try to put on them, the terms ultimately mean the same thing. Of course, since they are only ever applied in one direction, the entire notion could be, and likely should be, considered a fallacy.

Sure, I agree. We can all do dictionary definitions and follow the roots of our language, and the two terms will show themselves as meaning precisley the same thing. I think I was refering to common useage when distinguishing between the two terms. But then to dismiss the whole notion as a fallacy strikes me as refusing to believe one's eyes. Logically we should be prepared to use either term to describe ourselves, but I feel many of us would choose not to do that.
Since we now have no available name for those like myself who choose to wear some of the clothes which have been designed for the opposite gender - how shall we define or describe ourselves? Then how do we define those who only wear clothes of their own gender, those who like to wear some clothes of the other gender, and those who would dress to convice themselves, and others, that they are of their non-birth gender. We need a whole load of new words do we not? Any suggestions?

Curious,

Derek

Derek Plattis wrote:Any suggestions?

How about simply "Free Men"?

Why does there have to be a term to describe us. With political correctness it is improper to assign a name to anyone because of a shall we say physical or mental condition. We can't call some one who is a little slow a r...... they are at worst intellectually challenged so if we must come up with a term how about trouserlly challenged

oldsalt1 wrote:We can't call some one who is a little slow a r...... they are at worst intellectually challenged [...]

"Mercifully devoid of the ravages of intelligence." (Unabashedly cribbed from an episode of Fawlty Towers.) Also, "I've seen smarter things on their backs at the bottom of ponds". I have been known to use those in conversation.

[... S]o if we must come up with a term how about trouserlly challenged

Or, perhaps, style-enhanced (as a play on "melanin-enhanced")?

I have heard (and read) the term "follicularly challenged" to describe balding folks. Sorry, Dave, but there's no ill intent; I think I'll be there in a few years. I'm surprised I have as much as I do now; my mother's side must've done me some favours. My grandfather was bald by the time he was in his 20s, and my dad by his late 30s.

Derek Plattis wrote: ...Then how do we define those who only wear clothes of their own gender, those who like to wear some clothes of the other gender, and those who would dress to convice themselves, and others, that they are of their non-birth gender. We need a whole load of new words do we not? Any suggestions?

Labels… I don 't like 'em. The fact that we have argued for a long time about the labels "crossdresser" and "transvestite" suggest that maybe we don't need to use them, or come up with new terms. I just like to wear skirts! …and sometimes women's tops! When conversations take place where the c-word (crossdressing) might be on someone's mind, I usually say that I don't consider myself a crossdresser, but do consider myself a "fashion freestyler". MOH likes that term, and so do I. "Freestyle Fashion" is at the root of this forum of the Skirt Café; why not use this term? I have also occasionally described myself as a "fashion pioneer".

To sum up, I think labels can carry a lot of baggage, but I do like the term "fashion freestyler".

-----Henry

skirtingtheissue wrote:[...] I do like the term "fashion freestyler".

That's as good a term as any, but even it, too, has baggage as anyone who's been here for more than 5 years or so knows, and certainly those who were here when it was Tom's Cafe and the "Bravehearts" vs. "Freestylers" conflict erupted.

From a personal perspective, I avoid generalising terms anyway (or at least try to) and simply go about my life wearing what I want to wear and what I feel comfortable and happy in. The aura projected by comfort and happiness is usually more than enough to keep detractors at bay, and if negativism comes my way I tend to volley back, playfully at first, but if it continues I'll fire the broadside of, "What is your problem, anyway?" (The latter is exceedingly rare.)

crfriend wrote: but even it, too, has baggage as anyone who's been here for more than 5 years or so knows, and certainly those who were here when it was Tom's Cafe and the "Bravehearts" vs. "Freestylers" conflict erupted.

I've thumbed through some of those old threads on this site. It looks like it was quite a conflict indeed...

Based on the writings of the site as of now, it seems that freestyling (or some variation thereof) is the majority view at this point.

Of course, I tip my hat to the straight up kilt wearers. To each is own, freedom means free to choose.

Carl, when are ya going to get around to that "skirt cafe-history" you mentioned a while back? I eagerly await!