Skirts are for comfort, not about sex.

ChristopherJ · Post by **ChristopherJ** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:03 am

"I don't get it," he drawls. "Don't these people want to be liberated?"

Am I allowed to laugh?

Seriously, Imadube's ideas on dressing etc. may be both interesting and valid - but I am accustomed to people expressing their ideas to me as personal statements - i.e. "I think . . " or "I feel . . " etc. - not as commands such as "You should . . " or "You must . . " etc. - so that type of language immediately put me off what the poster was saying. In addition to that - after receiving a couple of negative comments, Imadube immediately reacted by making offensive remarks directed at those who had posted negative comments and, it seems, at British posters generally.

All this put together just makes me want to skip over Imadube's posts. If you are reading this Imadube - it would be great if you would just calm down a bit and talk about your opinions - rather than adopting the tone of a college lecturer explaining Advanced Skirting Techniques.

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:15 am

Bravehearts.us wrote:It’s name calling just like calling someone a fag. It’s offensive to others even if it’s not to her.

Nope! Not in the UK! Our (UK) folk are apparently made of sterner stuff! What's a "fag"? Here, it means a cigarette (or, in 'posh' circles, a public school junior). If it has a different meaning in the USA, please explain. If it has some reference to 'homosexual', then yea, what is it and, what if it does? Over here, homosexuals are often referred to as "shirt-lifters", "uphill gardeners", etc. So what? If they don't care a jot, why the h*ll should anybody else deem it necessary to 'bend over backwards' to suit the sensitivities of the PC brigade? Those friends of ours who just 'happen' to live by different orientations would be deeply offended by patronising assumptions that they cannot speak/look after themselves. It's no more 'name-calling', than calling a bespectacled person 'four-eyes' or a bloke with thinning hair 'baldy'. It's only 'offensive' if offence is intended. 'Political Correctness' is far more offensive, per se.

:shake: :ninjajig:

Bravehearts.us · Post by **Bravehearts.us** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:07 am

merlin wrote:Nope! Not in the UK! Our (UK) folk are apparently made of sterner stuff! What's a "fag"? Here, it means a cigarette (or, in 'posh' circles, a public school junior). If it has a different meaning in the USA, please explain. If it has some reference to 'homosexual', then yea, what is it and, what if it does? Over here, homosexuals are often referred to as "shirt-lifters", "uphill gardeners", etc. So what? If they don't care a jot, why the h*ll should anybody else deem it necessary to 'bend over backwards' to suit the sensitivities of the PC brigade? Those friends of ours who just 'happen' to live by different orientations would be deeply offended by patronising assumptions that they cannot speak/look after themselves. It's no more 'name-calling', than calling a bespectacled person 'four-eyes' or a bloke with thinning hair 'baldy'. It's only 'offensive' if offence is intended. 'Political Correctness' is far more offensive, per se. :shake: :ninjajig:

Fag here is derogatory slang for a homosexual, usually a male. I have never heard it used for anything other than to put someone down. I’ve seen a lot of girls on the playground go home crying because they were called four eyes and boys fighting after being called that. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It’s more about having consideration for other’s feelings. So why not use the correct names for things and in doing so help to protect someone’s feelings?

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:18 am

Bravehearts.us wrote: So why not use the correct names for things and in doing so help to protect someone’s feelings?

Perhaps not using the correct names allegedly 'protects' feelings? Otherwise, how did the "G" word (sadly) get itself 'linked' with homosexuals? It seems a little spurious, if you don't mind me saying so, to assume that the meaning one attaches a word will be the same, worldwide. One only has to look at the completely different meanings used by folk (Americans!) here in respect of clothing items, viz., pants, vests, plaids. The first two go under one's garments, the third goes over one's shoulder, and then only as part of (very!) formal attire......!

It's not that difficult to fend off (most) remarks intended to 'insult'. If one gets called 'baldy' (or whatever), then, "Yea? What's your point?" followed up, if necessary, with, "I'm really sorry you have a problem with it" is a not unreasonable put down. I get sick and tired, because my AC/DC friends get sick and tired, of folk constantly 'patronising' them by seeking to 'protect their feelings'. They're not some sub-species incapable of thoughts and actions - they're human beings, right?

:ninjajig:

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:11 am

ChristopherJ wrote: Seriously, Imadube's ideas on dressing etc. may be both interesting and valid - but I am accustomed to people expressing their ideas to me as personal statements - i.e. "I think . . " or "I feel . . " etc. - not as commands such as "You should . . " or "You must . . " etc. - so that type of language immediately put me off what the poster was saying.

I asked the question earlier as to whether Mr Imadube was maybe from a non-American (sub. 'English-speaking', if you prefer) background. I say this purely based on the fact that when we first started visiting The Netherlands way back in the 80's, our Dutch friends always used, "You must" or "You should", when what they really meant was "You may" or "You can". It took us a while to get used to this phraseology, as most Dutch speak near-perfect English. Even today, this particular translation 'issue' still occurs, but of course, we are now accustomed to it!

The only time I've been lost for words in recent years was when I was wandering, skirted, through the urban area North of the river, in Amsterdam and this car pulled up alongside and the driver said, "You must be English!" (in English!) and then drove off.....!

Bravehearts.us · Post by **Bravehearts.us** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:22 pm

merlin wrote:Perhaps not using the correct names allegedly 'protects' feelings? Otherwise, how did the "G" word (sadly) get itself 'linked' with homosexuals? It seems a little spurious, if you don't mind me saying so, to assume that the meaning one attaches a word will be the same, worldwide. One only has to look at the completely different meanings used by folk (Americans!) here in respect of clothing items, viz., pants, vests, plaids. The first two go under one's garments, the third goes over one's shoulder, and then only as part of (very!) formal attire......!

It's not that difficult to fend off (most) remarks intended to 'insult'. If one gets called 'baldy' (or whatever), then, "Yea? What's your point?" followed up, if necessary, with, "I'm really sorry you have a problem with it" is a not unreasonable put down. I get sick and tired, because my AC/DC friends get sick and tired, of folk constantly 'patronising' them by seeking to 'protect their feelings'. They're not some sub-species incapable of thoughts and actions - they're human beings, right? :ninjajig:

There are different ways to get one’s message across. Why not try and choose one that will convey your thoughts to nurture that other individual at best and at least without taking the chance at hurting them?

Big and Bashful · Post by **Big and Bashful** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:23 pm

Oh come on children, lighten up! You'll be getting the Cafe a bad name, and many of you are old enough to know better.

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:11 pm

Bravehearts.us wrote:There are different ways to get one’s message across. Why not try and choose one that will convey your thoughts to nurture that other individual at best and at least without taking the chance at hurting them?

I'm not the one trying to 'hurt' Imadube' feelings.

For goodness sake, at least I'm trying to find out 'where he's coming from', metaphorically (and even nationality-wise, if it helps). As Big & Bashful says, "lighten up!"

Since1982 · Post by **Since1982** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:36 pm

I don't often agree fully with Steve D. but in this case I completely agree with him.

Mark Dube's comments:

Ear rings - IF YOU WON'T WEAR THEM IN JEANS - DO NOT wear them in a skirt. Hanging styles really need to be avoided. I know there are many places to get ear rings and many different styles, but So many are ladies ONLY.
In fact all these thoughts can be applied to one simple rule:
IF YOU WON'T WEAR THEM IN PANTS - DO NOT wear them in a skirt.

are interesting, but only from a critical view. To me, what gives Mark Dube the right to criticize what other men wear? We've had more than our share on this site of critical people. IF you don't like what we wear and say, you need to perhaps find a new site to go bother the members of.

I remember several notably nasty commentors over the last few years on this site that lasted a while, found out their opinions were really not needed and are no longer posting here. This stopping of posting usually happens after enough regular members put the poster on permanent IGNORE. Which is where I am putting Mark Dube right after posting this response.:shake:

imadube · Post by **imadube** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:31 am

Just set this up, If you want to know a bit about imadube:
http://www.freewebs.com/imadube/index.htm
Started a Yahoo Group too,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mensskirts/
Got to add a link back to here. Soon.

Departed Member · Post by **Departed Member** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:27 am

"IF YOU WON'T WEAR THEM IN PANTS - DO NOT wear them in a skirt."

I'll grant you my award for the "Best piece of advice for 2006 from a newcomer"! (Even though I, as a UK citizen, still find the use of that word, "Pants", so freakin' hilarious when describing tr*users!).

Eager newcomers' thoughts/observations shouldn't be 'put down' out of hand, even if they appear 'contraversial'. This bloke's well wrong about Europeans, but he ain't going to learn if we don't educate him, is he?

imadube · Post by **imadube** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:38 am

Merlin - Thank you, For the vote of confidence. It feels good to be awarded even an a[FONT=Times New Roman]cknowledgement, not a physical award, makes one feel they can make a contribution for the good of the group.[/FONT] I know the term pants is an American thing (hey, you go with what you know right).
I must admit my views toward Europeans is a bit tanted due to my years of military service of the U.S. and my Multi-National Services Duty under NATO Command. Many times other Nationallities would perposely cause distress of other nations personel, also living in local economy housing in many areas causes one to see the local community in not so good light as most do whilst vactioning in those same areas. ie.. While stationed in the Netherlands parts of my Buick would "disappear" while parked in my drive. One local guessed that it was cheaper to get the parts from my car then to buy them somewhere.

Thanks again, I will try and work on the way I perceive and express.

Stevie D · Post by **Stevie D** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:13 am

imadube wrote:.....
I must admit my views toward Europeans is a bit tanted due to my years of military service of the U.S. and my Multi-National Services Duty under NATO Command. Many times other Nationallities would perposely cause distress of other nations personel, also living in local economy housing in many areas causes one to see the local community in not so good light as most do whilst vactioning in those same areas. ie.. While stationed in the Netherlands parts of my Buick would "disappear" while parked in my drive. One local guessed that it was cheaper to get the parts from my car then to buy them somewhere.

Thanks again, I will try and work on the way I perceive and express.

All we would ask here is not to be "told" what to do by you or anyone else, for we are all individuals and think differently. What is right for you may be anathema to someone else.

And as you have now realised, Europeans are all different too. We cannot all be tarred with the same brush. It is unfortunate that you had some bad experiences while you were stationed in the Netherlands, but I would guess that you risk getting parts stolen from your car or other theft/vandalism in many urban areas all over the world.

Despite what you might think, I'm glad you decided to stick around. We are all united by much the same sort of things here, so that's worth remembering and hanging on to.

Coffees all round, I think....?

imadube · Post by **imadube** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:27 pm

Coffees all round, I think....?

Now that's novel, use to have some good for fun fights with the UK soldiers I worked with about coffee and tea. Some of them seemed to really not like to be reminded of the Boston Tea Party. Boy the comments we qall came up with. Great times in the soldiers eyes, hahahaha...

Stevie D · Post by **Stevie D** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:45 pm

So long as the coffee is organic and Fairtrade, I don't mind where it comes from...