The Math of Skirting

[skirttron]

I would like to propose some skirting formulas:

IF female companions present
Number of negative comments received = 0
else
Number of negative comments received is inversely proportional to
local average IQ

Amplitude of desire for femininized style = 1/(openness of skirt wearing)

Amplitude of sensation of conspicuousness =1/(length of time spent openly wearing a skirt)

[Since1982]

Amplitude of desire for femininized style = 1/(openness of skirt wearing)

I don't think wanting to wear a skirt openly for comfort is making anyone feminized.

I wear a skirt openly all the time and I have never felt feminine since I was a young child. I'm just a big guy wearing a skirt, T-shirt and sandals or loafers.

[N0HEQ]

Likewise I wear a skirt openly without calling it a kilt when it certainly isn't a kilt. So many men believe that wearing a skirt that isn't a kilt will start them on a monthly menstrual cycle. That means that most such sexually insecure men aren't real men since it will take a lot more than a frilly pink skirt to feminize a real man. Some of those "kilts" should result in prison time in Scotland since they aren't pleated & they aren't even wool. Using an epilator over you entire body doesn't result in male infertility either. Some men & women think that a man in a dress or a skirt is gay. If that were true then every woman who wears pants would be an obvious lesbian. Some people must have donated their brains to medical science at a very young age.[/b

[Ray]

I broadly agree with you, NOHEQ. The word "skirt" should not be a barrier to
Men wearing one.

I would not frame my response in the same manner as you but a skirt is a skirt (lovely) and a kilt is a skirted garment ( also lovely). Okay, the latter may be warmer in winter but that's wool for you!

[rick401r]

Huh?

[crfriend]

So many men believe that wearing a skirt that isn't a kilt will start them on a monthly menstrual cycle. That means that most such sexually insecure men aren't real men since it will take a lot more than a frilly pink skirt to feminize a real man.

Methinks that a lesson in basic diplomacy may be in order here. It is a very rare occurrence that anybody manages to sway opinions of skeptics by insulting them; this is worth bearing in mind. The successful diplomat -- or general, for that matter -- knows that seduction is frequently an easier path when one wants to change minds and attitudes. Instead of slagging off on the guys who only wear trousers -- for they've likely worn nothing else since they were out of nappies -- why not try the approach of, "You don't know what you're missing! Give it a go!"?

Skirts confer great comfort advantages in many situations -- and are pretty much no-ops in others -- but for the most part they make for a splendid alternative to trousers. And I will posit that the vast majority of folks, when presented with a confident man in a skirt, will "see the light". This does not mean that they will immediately go out and purchase one for themselves, but possibly that their minds were broadened -- and that's what this is all about: getting skirted garments accepted on guys. Slinging insults is not, in this author's opinion, the way to go about that goal.

Some men & women think that a man in a dress or a skirt is gay. If that were true then every woman who wears pants would be an obvious lesbian.

This is another example of flawed logic wielded as insult. It is counterproductive. If you insult somebody, the very first thing that they will do is dismiss you as a crank or a fool -- that is, of course, if they don't give you a thumping. The "softly softly" approach may not have the hyper-macho bravado of charging into battle with guns a-blazing, but some very macho types have used the diplomatic approach to very good ends; recall that there have been books written about the "Management Skills of Ghengis Khan"., and Machiavelli makes for a pretty good read even in this day and age

I do not believe that this community is in this for conquest; I believe we are in it as ambassadors of an alternate style for men. If I put a gun to your head and told you (a hypothetical "you") to put on a skirt you probably would -- but would you ever do it again once I left the room? The point is to make the notion interesting and attractive -- enticing, even. Insults and abuse are not appropriate tools for that mission.

[kingfish]

Methinks that a lesson in basic diplomacy may be in order here. It is a very rare occurrence that anybody manages to sway opinions of skeptics by insulting them; this is worth bearing in mind. The successful diplomat -- or general, for that matter -- knows that seduction is frequently an easier path when one wants to change minds and attitudes. Instead of slagging off on the guys who only wear trousers -- for they've likely worn nothing else since they were out of nappies -- why not try the approach of, "You don't know what you're missing! Give it a go!"?

Complete agreement here...
I've heard diplomacy described as being able to tell someone to go to and look forward to the trip.


Here are some of my personal favorite comebacks:

It's all about freedom!

People who wear boxers because they want the family jewels loose miss the point when they put on that tight pair of blue jeans.

I really like seeing women in skirts. In fact, I find it delightfully mesmerizing. Think of my skirt wearing as leading by example. I'm not going to ask them to do something I wouldn't do myself.

[Ray]

Thread drift!

Here's a couple of equations - two ways of expressing the optimum number of skirts in a mans wardrobe:

1. N + 1, where N = the number of skirts currently owned;

2. S - 1, where S = the number of skirts which will instigate separation by one's partner....

[crfriend]

1. N + 1, where N = the number of skirts currently owned;

2. S - 1, where S = the number of skirts which will instigate separation by one's partner....

I am no mathematician (dammit, where's AMM when you really need him!) but I see problems at the low end of the scale (excluding negative numbers) where zero and one cause severe problems for hypothesis 2, and for numbers greater than one I can easily see a linear runaway problem with hypothesis 1.

For (2), if one's SO is not tolerant at all, then 1 is 1 too many and hence the number will be constrained to 0; for (1), if 1 is acceptable then it will linearly increase at an undefined rate until it ultimately overcomes the capacity of the domicile -- at which (2) may well come into play with a vengeance. [0]

For me, the "math of skirting" comes down to garments I see that are appealing to me, and that I have financial ability to acquire (the former being vastly more important than the latter); the latter is the ultimate determinant as even if I see one I "just can't live without" cash-on-hand makes the final call.

There is likely a reason why I am not a mathematician, not the least of which being that I ruddy well stank at it in secondary school.

[0] I ran headlong into this phenomenon with computers. I collect "elder iron" and at first one or two -- or even a few -- was OK; when it got into the 20s it ceased to be so. This is one reason why my "skirt budget" is constrained -- I'm expending quite a bit on keeping a roof over my historic computers.

[ethelthefrog]

My historic computer collection used to fit into four boxes. Sadly, a cull left me with two boxes, but I have six or so classic Spectrum computers (Timex Sinclair 2000's for the USians out there) (down from 17), so a good slice across the family, with about four models represented from the humble rubber-keyed original, a Spectrum +, a Spectrum 128 and a +2. I lost interest when Alan Sugar completely rewrote the internal hardware, though, so no +3.

while ((wife == happy) && (cash > 0))
{
skirt = skirt + 1;
}

[skirted_in_SF]

while ((wife == happy) && (cash > 0))
{
skirt = skirt + 1;
}

I can understand what your code snippet is trying to say, but is it a real language? My actual hands-on experience ended in FORTRAN and COBOL days, but this looks a bit like C or one of it's relatives.

[crfriend]

I can understand what your code snippet is trying to say, but is it a real language?

It looks like C. It's not Perl and it's certainly not FORTRAN Of course it could be C-- or D-flat (C#, also C-pound).

The geek in me took a look at the statement and immediately optimised it to the point where it could be implemented in hardware with a resistor and a piece of wire. Both terms are booleans and hence can be expressed in binary (the && is redundant, one could do with &) so one can use a "wired OR" as a negative-logic AND to complete the statement. In short, If !wife_happy .OR. !spare_cash THEN no_new_skirts. (Blasted metal-heads.)

Bonus points to anybody who can code that in ALGOL ("a great improvement over most of its successors").

[skirted_in_SF]

In short, If !wife_happy .OR. !spare_cash THEN no_new_skirts.

It took me two readings to understand what you did in this statement. I assume !wife_happy = not (wife_happy)

(Blasted metal-heads.)

That explains your collection of retired iron.

[crfriend]

It took me two readings to understand what you did in this statement. I assume !wife_happy = not (wife_happy)

Precisely. Inversion bubbles and the standard Boolean negation-bar do not translate into HTML (or BBcode) well. There are likely some readers who are still cursing me for that post and more that are thinking that the (current) Master Barista has gone 'round the bend!

For those who are so inclined, envision a series circuit of a resistor and an LED (Light Emitting Diode, not to be confused with a DED (Dark Emitting Diode)) with two switches connected between the resistor and the LED, each of which can be open or connected to ground. The "wife_happy" term and the "spare_cash" terms have their respective switches open if they are true and closed if false thereby grounding the circuit between the resistor and extinguishing the LED (Note: it does not change the LED into a DED; that requires extra force. Too, the old-school types might like to substitute an incandescent lamp for the LED. This is acceptable and produces a nice warm glow.)

A good friend of mine has stated several times that his favourite programming language is solder. I have a fondness for wire-wrap.

There's a reason why most bus architectures are ground-asserted -- it's just easier that way.

(Blasted metal-heads.)

That explains your collection of retired iron.

But of course! The most fun part about my collection of "elder iron" is that most of it works!

Don't you just hate geeks?!

[Don]

Bonus points to anybody who can code that in ALGOL ("a great improvement over most of its successors").

There was once a time when I probably could have, but that was long ago and far away!

I also used to like a language called "PL/1", which I though would become something of a universal language, since it was backed by the mother-of-us-all (also known as IBM - Anyone remember them?). It had the best of COBOL (hierarchical data structures) and FORTRAN, plus a very nice block structure layout. I don't remember it having dynamic storage, structure pointers, or object orientation, but these would not have been hard to add.

Eventually, UNIVAC embraced the language, as did Digital Research (who brought us CP/M), and then suddenly, it vanished! "C" probbly had something to do with that, although I found C horribly cryptic and difficult to learn. Also, its decendents aren't fully compatible to eachother!

Don
Oakland, NJ