One woman's reaction to a MIS

[AMM]

I was at a contra dance recently and had a sort of weird experience.

I was wearing a skirt I'd recently made which was rather brightly colored and full, which made me feel both a little proud and a little nervous at being so conspicuous. (I usually wear full skirts when contra dancing.)

I was standing in line in a set, talking to my partner, when I suddenly felt my skirt being tugged down. I pulled it back up, and turned to see the lady next to me in line (who I'd never seen before that evening) pulling it down again! I don't know how far down it would have gone if it had been one of those pull-on elastic-waist skirts, but fortunately it wouldn't go down more than an inch or so. I thought maybe I'd done something to offend her, and she was getting back at me. She didn't seem the least bit embarrassed, and I had to pull away to keep her from doing it again. She seemed to think it was OK since "you have pants on underneath." [Note the US usage of "pants."] I asked her how she would like it if I tried pulling down her skirt, and she said, "I don't have pants on underneath." It went on in this surreal way, with me expressing indignation and her acting like it was perfectly OK, until the caller started walking us through the dance.

After the dance, as a group of us were heading off to a restaurant, she challenged me to wear the skirt there (I had planned to, anyway.) I ended up sitting next to her, but there were no incidents.

It was only later, on the drive home, that it occurred to me that maybe the skirt-pulling was really an expression of curiosity, like the frequent questions about what a Scot has on under his kilt. Women pretty regularly ask me about whether I have a petticoat (because the skirt sticks out slightly) or otherwise express curiosity about what I have on underneath. Maybe this was just a more aggressive version of the same thing.

Or was she making a pass at me? (After the dance, she made some comment about me not asking her for any of the dances.) As clueless as I am, I don't know if I'd recognize a woman making a pass at me unless she told me in so many words.

At the very least, I suspect she was trying to get me to pay attention to her -- which she succeeded at.


Has this sort of thing happened to anyone else?

And any suggestions for a graceful way of handling it? (No, busting her in the chops is not an acceptable answer.)

-- AMM

[Sashi]

Very interesting story there. Not only do I not have the experience to back anything up, though, I'm just as clueless as you say you are when it comes to recognizing when someone is making a pass at me. The fine art of flirting is not just alien to me, but more so completely non-existent. It does sound a little like she was though, in my opinion, from what you said. Anyways, maybe someone else would be able to make a more educated guess than me.

[crfriend]

I was at a contra dance recently and had a sort of weird experience.

Sorry for the awful pun in the title, but when one sees the open shot one feels somehow compelled to take it....

Based on the description, I cannot tell whether this was an attempt at flirting (or even a pass) or not; there's not quite enough context. Whilst I think the act of being touched by a stranger is beyond the pale (I'd never do it to anyone else unless invited) I find the exchange interesting.

Did this woman really believe her actions were appropriate? From what's supplied (or perceived by the "receiver of her attentions") it's not really possible to tell. What was supplied, though, indicates that she was either deliberately trying to provoke (or arouse) or was completely clueless when it comes to matters of public etiquette.

I've been asked a couple of times, in public, what I was wearing underneath, and in each case I answered according to the "presentation skills" of the asker. In one case, documented here in an earlier thread, I politely but forcefully responded that, "Thats my business and I don't talk about it in public." In another, where the asker's tone was a bit flirtatious, I answered, "Probably something akin to what you wear under yours." Both answers worked quite well: the first askers were put off and shut up and the second blushed a bit and wandered off. (If I was "on the make", I might have pursued the conversation with the second one.) Both answers are also technically accurate; the first for personal reasons, and that most women wear underwear under their skirts (some "celebutards" notwithstanding) as I do, the reasons for which I shall not delve into here.

So, the reaction one provides to an otherwise off-colour question (and it really is, because what a chap (or woman) is wearing under an item of clothing is nobody's business but that of the wearer (unless the wearer decides to show it off; see "whale tail"). It'd be nice if the ladies would start a conversation on something a little less "suggestive" as to what we're wearing (or not) underneath; the conversation can take that path later on, but as an opening line it's a put-off. Opening a conversation on the skirt itself or the reasons for wearing one, I think, is perfectly acceptable.

As an aside, what is with the notion of "pants" (US usage as per AMM's entry) underneath a skirt? I know that lots of younger women are wearing such rigs and I fail to understand why. Wearing trousers underneath a skirt seems to be going for the worst of both worlds and the best of neither. One gets the confines of trousers and all the management headaches of skirts. {shrug}

[Departed Member]

As an aside, what is with the notion of "pants" (US usage as per AMM's entry) underneath a skirt? I know that lots of younger women are wearing such rigs and I fail to understand why. Wearing trousers underneath a skirt seems to be going for the worst of both worlds and the best of neither. One gets the confines of trousers and all the management headaches of skirts. {shrug}

To me, it looks rather 'childish' at best, or just plain 'silly'. It's a 'fashion' that seems to pop up once every fifteen years or so. Like 'Skorts', only worse (if, indeed, that is possible - still popular in Belgium, sad to say!).

[AMM]

... As an aside, what is with the notion of "pants" (US usage as per AMM's entry) underneath a skirt? I know that lots of younger women are wearing such rigs and I fail to understand why. ...

I have noticed that some women at contra dances wear "bicycle pants" (skintight shorts, usually black) under their skirts. Not that I've been conducting inspections , but some skirts ride way up when the wearer twirls, to the point that nothing is left to the imagination.

I suspect that the women who wear such skirts are quite aware of what is going on (given that women generally have more experience with skirts than men, and are more likely to ask their friends for advice if there's any doubt about what is visible) and wear these to avoid appearing to "flash" people.

With my contra dancing skirts, which stick out at least 45 degrees when I twirl, I've gone to some trouble to figure out how much is visible, and occasionally asked people to watch and tell me.

Note that (female) square dancers are instructed to wear "pettipants" under their petticoats for the same reason.

(One alternative I use is a more or less straight half-slip. Whether it's "immodest" if it shows is, I suppose, a matter of perspective, but it *is* cooler and less bulky than shorts.)

I'm not sure whether the guys who wear skirts wear shorts under them or not. Some do, I believe, but I think some take the shorts off after putting the skirt on, since it's cooler that way.



As for non-dancers, I can only speculate.

I've had women tell me they feel more comfortable in trousers because they can sit any way they like (presumably meaning they don't have to worry about showing their underwear or body parts that are supposed to remain covered.) Skirt + trousers or shorts probably is a way of combining the feminine look of a skirt with the freedom (in this sense) of trousers.

But maybe one of the female participants can help us out with this.

-- AMM

As an aside, I think it's sad that people are so obsessed with making sure that no one ever, ever gets a glimpse of what they know is there, anyway. The compulsive covering-up is in its way just as sex-obsessed as the conspicuous display of the same body parts -- cf. the Victorian obsession with covering piano legs. I've seen women who dress comfortably and then just don't worry about what people can see, and they seem more modest even when you can see their underwear (or lack thereof) than others who make more of an effort to cover up.

[iain]

It seems simple to me--of course she was making a pass but in her own way. You have to ask yourself: if you were a down and out, reeking of alcohol and urine, staggering along next to her, would she have done the same?

Of course not. She felt you were approachable and she didn't feel any barrier between the two of you. She simply is more forthright and perhaps less tactful than other women, but what of it? You showed her your personality and she showed you hers.

That's why she commented on your not asking her to dance! Don't ignore the obvious..

[Charlie]

Was she assuming you were wearing pants i.e. trousers, under your skirt? Contra dancing in a kilt makes me hot enough - wearing a full skirt and pants would take most beyond melting point!

Charlie

[eightofninekev]

What every her intentions were it is unacceptable behaviour if the situation were reversed and you tried to pull down her skirt ,you would get into serious trouble.

[ChristopherJ]

I agree.

You should have busted her in the chops.

[Sashi]

As an aside, what is with the notion of "pants" (US usage as per AMM's entry) underneath a skirt? I know that lots of younger women are wearing such rigs and I fail to understand why. Wearing trousers underneath a skirt seems to be going for the worst of both worlds and the best of neither. One gets the confines of trousers and all the management headaches of skirts. {shrug}

To me, it looks rather 'childish' at best, or just plain 'silly'. It's a 'fashion' that seems to pop up once every fifteen years or so. Like 'Skorts', only worse (if, indeed, that is possible - still popular in Belgium, sad to say!).

I don't know, I kinda like the look. Granted I've never actually seen it in real life (to my knowledge), but I have seen anime characters wearing shortish skirts with pants or skintight shorts (biking mabe?) underneath them. It may not be the most practical of things, but done right I bet it'd look pretty awesome. I'm betting, at least with pants, it would work out quite well during the colder months of the year, and depending on what the shorts were made out of it they could work well during the warmer months. Anyways, that's just my two cents :ninjajig:

[Departed Member]

Perhaps the only 'saving grace' would be to cover up 'low rise' jeans! :shake:

The 'look' which currently prevails amongst those who still attempt to 'pull it off' here (UK) is a flimsy 'dress' (more a lonnng, flimsy blouse) over 'industrial-strength' jeans. As for skirt + shorts, 'pre-school' might be an apt description. A young teen might 'get away with' either look, I suppose. It just emphasises their (apparent) immaturity. Much to my total surprise, such a viewpoint is shared by a wide cross-section of age-groups...

[crfriend]

As an aside, I think it's sad that people are so obsessed with making sure that no one ever, ever gets a glimpse of what they know is there, anyway. The compulsive covering-up is in its way just as sex-obsessed as the conspicuous display of the same body parts -- cf. the Victorian obsession with covering piano legs.

That's an interesting notion to bring up, and one that may dovetail (somewhat) into some folks' aversion to public nudity. Yes, we all know "what's there", and we all know what it's there for (at least since roughly puberty), but does that mean that we should put it all on public display?

At work here, as in many other places, I suspect, is the old double-standard: what's OK for women is decidedly not OK for men. This may, just perhaps, be because men have been "driving" the notion of public mores for some time now, and most men (I count myself included ) are a bit tittilated by the sight of something inadvertently "flashed" by the "fairer sex" but are rather put off when it's flashed by one of their own. Go figure. Whether it's "healthy" or not may as well appear as a doctoral thesis sooner or later (if it hasn't already). (I tend to hold obviously deliberate displays as being somewhat tacky, but that's the prude in me.)

On another level, what ever happened to the notion of leaving to the imaginination what's just barely under cover? That's a lot more fun than an explicit display.

I've seen women who dress comfortably and then just don't worry about what people can see, and they seem more modest even when you can see their underwear (or lack thereof) than others who make more of an effort to cover up.

You must travel in different circles than I. Most of the women I see are dressed in trousers, and whilst many of the trousers are tight to the point of being more "revealing" than any skirt ever would be, still manage to look boring. Perhaps, just maybe, one of the allures of the skirt is that there is no inseam to "cover indiscretions" (even when the inseam is so form-fitting it'd squeeze "boy-bits" into oblivion).

What, do you suppose, would be the result of a modern-day male showing up in public wearing a waist-length form-fitting jacket, tights, and a codpiece? I suspect the chap in question would get hauled off to the local police station for a good talking-to or worse; but, when one looks at it rationally, what's the difference between that hypothetical lad's garb and what most women get away with now?

[Sashi]

Perhaps the only 'saving grace' would be to cover up 'low rise' jeans! :shake:

The 'look' which currently prevails amongst those who still attempt to 'pull it off' here (UK) is a flimsy 'dress' (more a lonnng, flimsy blouse) over 'industrial-strength' jeans. As for skirt + shorts, 'pre-school' might be an apt description. A young teen might 'get away with' either look, I suppose. It just emphasises their (apparent) immaturity. Much to my total surprise, such a viewpoint is shared by a wide cross-section of age-groups...

Aww, that's horrible! How could something such as that show your level of maturity (or lack thereof)? Pants and shorts by themselves don't cause people to think of you as immature, and neither do skirts alone, but if you combine them you're suddenly pegged as 'immature?'

While I know things like that usually don't follow it, I still have to ask: Where's the logic there?! How can a fashion choice be considered immature? To me, that'd be like saying a man who wants to wear a skirt must just be acting out immature desires, something that little boys might be interested in until it is labeled wrong by society as a whole. Bleh, not a good example, I know, but I couldn't come up with anything else.

I do have to ask though, why do you feel that way about it?

[raindog]

Hi folks,
she was flirting like mad! No question about it.
On the subject of wearing trousers underneath skirts I'd say it could look good if done well. Adds a bit of punkyness and individuality to a look.
I hate rules with anything. The program with those two fashion police women Susannah and Trinny (think I've got that right) makes my blood boil! What right have they got to turn all men into trouser wearing pointy shod brown and grey coloured jacketed clones? Everytime they do a show with a man he ends up looking like a clone.
Experimentation is good:)



Jeff.

[Sasquatch]

It was only later, on the drive home, that it occurred to me that maybe the skirt-pulling was really an expression of curiosity, like the frequent questions about what a Scot has on under his kilt. Women pretty regularly ask me about whether I have a petticoat (because the skirt sticks out slightly) or otherwise express curiosity about what I have on underneath. Maybe this was just a more aggressive version of the same thing.

Has this sort of thing happened to anyone else?

-- AMM

The story reminds me of an incident that happened many years ago. It was shortly after the famous (in the US) incident when, during the '92 presidential campaign, a young woman reporter from MTV asked candidate Bill Clinton whether he wore boxers or briefs. I was crossing a parking lot at a mall when a car with open windows bearing four probably inebriated women stopped beside me and one asked me the same question - probably on a dare from her friends. I approached the car and feigned to unfasten my belt and replied "How bad do you want to find out?" She blushed, hit the gas and sped off, the four laughing hysterically at themselves.

One sure cure for her rude behavior would have been to hike your skirt and show her what you wear underneath. I can't judge the proclivity of this particular woman, but that act would have shut up most women.

It is amazing that a woman in this day and age would think a man has no sensitivity to rudeness - but perhaps that's the only sort of man she has ever known. Or perhaps she intended to be insulting at first, then felt bad about it later, maybe having sensed that she had offended you.

It is absolutely true that if you had done the same to her, your arrest would have been headlined in the next day's press.

Sasq