Sightings "in the wild"

General discussion of skirt and kilt-based fashion for men, and stuff that goes with skirts and kilts.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Kirbstone »

Not far from Ambridge, I expect, Ray ? I bet Kenton would get a good laugh if you turned up at 'The Bull' skirted.

Tom
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !
Big and Bashful
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2921
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Scottish West Coast

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Big and Bashful »

Ray wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 3:50 pm Hmm.

The sign basically states that being gay is an abomination. That’s pretty nasty language in anyone’s book, let alone the bible.

From my perspective, the sign comes from bigots. I’m not going to pay for a billboard that states “Tennessee Christians are narrow minded homophobic bigots who believe in works of fiction and imaginary beings”. I may feel that way, but I’ve got enough respect - just - for these individuals not to publicly display such language.

This bible thing. Does it talk about tolerance? I’m sure it does. Do these idiots not read all of their precious book? You know, get a balanced perspective?

Thank goodness I live in a more tolerant part of the world. Not perfect; but a lot more tolerant.
Thanks Ray, I couldn't put my thoughts into words, you have said it all for me!
I am the God of Hellfire! and I bring you truffles!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by moonshadow »

The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” ― Justice Robert H. Jackson.

We just try to ignore the ridiculous signs, billboards and what not.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3988
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Fred in Skirts »

moonshadow wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:25 pmThe price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” ― Justice Robert H. Jackson.

We just try to ignore the ridiculous signs, billboards and what not.
Me, I just ignore any sign that offends me such as: speed limits, do not enter, no smoking, quiet zone ETC. Anyone can put up signs but if you don't like them ignore them, don't get all upset it isn't worth it...
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
Always be yourself because the people that matter don’t mind and the ones that mind don’t matter.
User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Kirbstone »

From an impressive list of offending signs there is one that you ignore at your peril........the one on a low beam in a Tudor English pub which reads: 'Duck or Grouse'.

Tom
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Ray »

Fred,

So you smoke around others who don't want your carcinogens, you drive over the speed limit regularly in all environments, and make noise in quiet areas.

Really?

There’s a difference between an advisory (or mandatory) sign, and an opinion.
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3988
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Fred in Skirts »

Ray wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:20 pm Fred,

So you smoke around others who don't want your carcinogens, you drive over the speed limit regularly in all environments, and make noise in quiet areas.

Really?

There’s a difference between an advisory (or mandatory) sign, and an opinion.
No not really!
1. I don't smoke at all. :mrgreen:
2. I have a fantastic driving record in 45 years I have no tickets or even parking tickets. :thumbdown:
3. I am mostly quiet anyway. :shhh:
4. I don't trespass on private property.
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
Always be yourself because the people that matter don’t mind and the ones that mind don’t matter.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Ray »

Good to hear, Fred! You’re a better man than me (I have been known to drive quickly in certain conditions).

So you ignore the signs because they aren’t relevant to you (you are compliant), yes? Just trying to understand.
User avatar
denimini
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:50 am
Location: Outback Australia

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by denimini »

Sometimes signs can be important:
Image
Anthony, a denim miniskirt wearer in Outback Australia
User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Kirbstone »

In a land full of bilingual notices, they didn't bother with this one, near where I live!

Tom
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !
User avatar
Fred in Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3988
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Southeast Corner of Aiken County, SC USA

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Fred in Skirts »

Ray wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:46 pm Good to hear, Fred! You’re a better man than me (I have been known to drive quickly in certain conditions).
So you ignore the signs because they aren’t relevant to you (you are compliant), yes? Just trying to understand.
Just having fun here!! :D
"It is better to be hated for what you are than be loved for what you are not" Andre Gide: 1869 - 1951
Always be yourself because the people that matter don’t mind and the ones that mind don’t matter.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

The biblical scholars who impress me stress that you have to read each book of the Bible in its context.

Yes, the current translations of Deuteronomy and Leviticus say that man shall not lie with man as a woman. But let’s look at that critically. Notice it doesn’t say anything about women lying with women. Doesn’t it make sense that if that proscription referred to homosexuality per se that it would refer to women as well? The clothing proscription does — assuming it refers to clothing at all — why not this?

Because the rule about men laying with men refers to the common practices that came on the heels of military conquest. When tribe A conquered tribe B, tribe A’s soldiers would not only rape the women but the men as well to make it crystal clear to the members of tribe B that they were subjugated by tribe A and they’d better not forget it.

As to the supposed crossdressing proscription, it doesn’t say that men shouldn’t wear women’s clothes — that wouldn’t make much sense because at that time for most people, they were identical — it says, “Women shall not take on that which pertains to men and vice versa.” You know like women going to war, because that was how you earned the right to lead, etc. In other words, because the ancient Israelites had a very patriarchal society, women shouldn’t presume to men’s place in society and men shouldn’t try to shirk their responsibilities as men by taking the woman’s role in their private life.

As Dust correctly pointed out, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of out-of-date practices. The classic being captured in the question, “Have you ever had a ham sandwich?” If you want something more substantive, read the instructions on actions required of soldiers who conquer an enemy’s town … Today we prosecute those practices as war crimes!

I suggest we stick to the 2nd greatest commandment that implicitly tells us to love ourselves. And our authentic selves prefer skirts and dresses to shorts and trousers.

So please, wear your skirted garments with pride and confidence! … And don’t forget, a little panache never hurt anything.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
STEVIE
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 pm
Location: North East Scotland.

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by STEVIE »

Apart from a striking resemblance to some artistic interpretations of Moses this is a wild sighting proper with no reference to testaments, old or new.
Around 14:00 in Aberdeen city centre Saturday, I was alighting from a bus. There was a gentleman boarding whose beard and hair were of very impressive proportions. He appeared to be wearing a plain black midi skirt.
Due to the circumstances, only a quick "hallo" passed between us.
Real good to see a kindred spirit and do we have anyone present who fits?
Steve.
Derek Plattis
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:43 pm
Location: U.K.

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Derek Plattis »

Were you skirted at the time Stevie?
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Sightings "in the wild"

Post by Dust »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:42 am The biblical scholars who impress me stress that you have to read each book of the Bible in its context.

Yes, the current translations of Deuteronomy and Leviticus say that man shall not lie with man as a woman. But let’s look at that critically. Notice it doesn’t say anything about women lying with women. Doesn’t it make sense that if that proscription referred to homosexuality per se that it would refer to women as well? The clothing proscription does — assuming it refers to clothing at all — why not this?

Because the rule about men laying with men refers to the common practices that came on the heels of military conquest. When tribe A conquered tribe B, tribe A’s soldiers would not only rape the women but the men as well to make it crystal clear to the members of tribe B that they were subjugated by tribe A and they’d better not forget it.
There's actually a good bit more than that in the bible about homosexuality, including some references in the New Testament. As to why women are left out here, it's hard to say, but without getting graphic, I imagine it may have to do with what women can do with other women being different from what men can do to other men. It was probably considered a somewhat different category.

Also, as to the context of the time it was written, male homosexuality was probably more prevalent and/or tended to involve rape, including war time offenses, as you implied. That does not mean, however that the prohibition doesn't apply elsewhere.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:42 am As to the supposed crossdressing proscription, it doesn’t say that men shouldn’t wear women’s clothes — that wouldn’t make much sense because at that time for most people, they were identical — it says, “Women shall not take on that which pertains to men and vice versa.” You know like women going to war, because that was how you earned the right to lead, etc. In other words, because the ancient Israelites had a very patriarchal society, women shouldn’t presume to men’s place in society and men shouldn’t try to shirk their responsibilities as men by taking the woman’s role in their private life.
I've heard this theory before. The prohibition on women putting on "what pertains to a man" or however it gets translated, in some of the older languages seems to refer to military garb and equipment, so this is quite possible. This would almost more directly apply to the modern transgender concept if that were the case, seeing as it directly has men taking on women's entire roles, and vice versa, rather than simply borrowing clothes.

The other theory I've heard is that there were sexual or religious practices in neighboring tribes that involved crossdressing. This then gets into first commandment (no other gods) and sixth commandment (adultery) issues.

I don't think that we can paint modern notions of patriarchy onto people of biblical times, but social roles for men and women were likely, if anything, much more distinct back then, even if the clothing differences were not.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:42 am As Dust correctly pointed out, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of out-of-date practices. The classic being captured in the question, “Have you ever had a ham sandwich?” If you want something more substantive, read the instructions on actions required of soldiers who conquer an enemy’s town … Today we prosecute those practices as war crimes!
I had to go back and see what I wrote, as it's been a while! The food restrictions were explicitly dropped in the New Testament (see Acts) along with circumcision (American Christians need to stop doing this!), while other things were reinforced (divorce restrictions by Christ himself in the Gospels, homosexuality prohibited in some of the Epistles, etc.).

The clothing restrictions don't get directly mentioned in the New Testament either way (as far as I can tell), but other Old Testament clothing rules are definitely not observed by modern Christians, such as the infamous prohibition on mixing different types of cloth in a single garment. (Some modern Jews eschew all blended fabrics based on this.)

Generally speaking, however, the Law of Moses was dropped for something less legalistic, and more based on love and intent. (Which is why I personally think trying to "pass" as a woman is still probably NOT okay, but incorporating women's stuff when a male version isn't available is probably fine.) Also, with the command to preach to the whole world, things that primarily served to separate God's chosen people from the bad influences of neighboring tribes were relaxed (so that they could go preach effectively), leaving only the root prohibitions on actually worshipping their false gods (demons) and other things that directly went against God's commands or the Natural Law.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:42 am I suggest we stick to the 2nd greatest commandment that implicitly tells us to love ourselves. And our authentic selves prefer skirts and dresses to shorts and trousers.
People tend to miss that point about self love, so I'm glad you pointed it out. "Love your neighbor as yourself" presupposes that you love yourself. But we cannot let self love get ahead of love of God, either, as that is the first and greatest commandment.

As anyone who has been in a long term relationship can tell you, you become a bit like the other person that you love and spend so much time with. Likewise, love of God should cause us to become more like Christ.* We should be actively trying to emulate Him. St. Paul of course says it better, but I think you get the idea.

So telling people to "be yourself" is potentially somewhat problematic, so I cringe a little everytime I hear or read things about your "authentic self" etc. Not saying that's always bad, but be wary. Taken too far, it can lead to hedonism, self worship, and a rejection of God.

Anyway, I think we all have room for improvement, and should not be content to stay the way we are, but seek to better ourselves. That is true self-love, since anyone you love you want the best for. Sometimes that means tough love, even with yourself.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:42 am So please, wear your skirted garments with pride and confidence! … And don’t forget, a little panache never hurt anything.
I might actually say that panache and confidence are good things. Do not be lukewarm, after all...


* There is a reason biblical theology has always used marriage as a metaphor for understanding the relationship God has with His people, and His people are supposed to have with Him. This shows up repeatedly in both the Old Testament and the New. This is also an often unspoken reason Christians are so opposed to changes to the institution of marriage.
Post Reply