skirtcafe.org

Stu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:59 pm it strongly suggests he has a gender identity issue and a wedding is hardly the best occasion to announce that to others.

They have the gender identity issue, not him.  If he is happy to dress that way, he obviously has no issue with it.

To be fair it is society and social pressure to 'stay within the rules' that's at fault, I've never heard any reasonable argument as to why guys shouldn't be able to wear feminine clothing, this really shouldn't be an issue, if the old guard had their way we'd all still be wearing suits and top hats (or cloth caps for the working class) and know our place, lol.

Good on those rules breakers

Well.... this debate is easy for me...!

I've never been to someone's wedding, I've never been invited to one that I could realistically attend.

Problem solved!

Ahhhh.... the delimas of the socially connected...!

Stu,

I suggest you reread the headline; the bride, who was the young fellow's mother, was perfectly okay with him dressing as a bridesmaid/flowergirl/whatever. It was HER wedding.

You also said something to the effect that marriage should only be for heterosexual couples who can propagate the species. That was a surprising position for someone who lives in Sweden where same-sex marriages have been legally recognized for a long enough period that social scientists there felt they could legitimately compare them to heterosexual marriages.

Marriages between two men turned out to be the most stable.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:27 am Stu,

I suggest you reread the headline; the bride, who was the young fellow's mother, was perfectly okay with him dressing as a bridesmaid/flowergirl/whatever. It was HER wedding.

You also said something to the effect that marriage should only be for heterosexual couples who can propagate the species. That was a surprising position for someone who lives in Sweden where same-sex marriages have been legally recognized for a long enough period that social scientists there felt they could legitimately compare them to heterosexual marriages.

Marriages between two men turned out to be the most stable.

xxx

You also said something to the effect that marriage should only be for heterosexual couples who can propagate the species

That is so wrongheaded and full of poppycock !
Married couples don't need to be able to conceive to propagate the species - there is the adoption option !


xxx

Marriages between two men turned out to be the most stable.

As well as two women !
Further note the marriages don't have to last forever - just long enough for the propagated (adopted) species to propagate the next generation !

Bad enough that we have had plagues famine and all that 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse stuff and now the C19 Virus thinning the herd !

As well as two women !

As a matter of fact not. Marriages between two women, as a group, were the least stable. Maybe whoever said women don't really know what they want, knew what he was talking about.

As brilliant parents they are this should really be as newsworthy as a girl wearing trousers, albeit in a wedding that would stand out more but not make the press. We can only look forward to.

I've seen that reported on Skirted 84. Some contemporary grooms who have a particularly close female friend have asked such friends to stand up with them. Those ladies all wore tuxes.

When it's a matter of the bride having a particularly good male friend those fellows also wear tuxes using the excuse that he was asked to be a bridesman so he felt obliged to appear as one.

If some bride asked me to be a member of her wedding party you'd better believe I'd insist on as ridiculous a bridesmaid's dress, invitations to the shopping sprees, fittings, showers, bachelorette party, etc. on an equal footing as the other members of the party! I just haven't figured out how to become an instant bestie of a soon to be bride ...

It’s an important step in understanding that no one should tell you what you can or cannot do with your body.

That is utter nonsense. There are a great many things that one is not permitted to do with ones own body. One may not get ones own body drunk, then dtive, use illegal drugs, use your body to attack or intimidate another, show up out of uniform if your job requires it, and so forth, ad infinitem.

Language has meaning, and specificity is critical to understanding. As far as the ephemera is concerned, sure, we have the right to do as we please, but that right is not, and can not be absolute.

Actually, you’re wrong in your summary. You can do all these things and it is your right. However, you are right in pointing out that certain actions do have consequences. However the original premise does stand. We, as individuals, have absolute rights over our bodies and what we do with them, for right, or for wrong.

If an action is illegal, it is not your legal right to do it. But that's not another individual telling you what to do, it's the jurisdiction, through their lawmakers saying so, presumably for the common good.

As far as wearing a required work uniform goes, that is part and parcel of a free, personal choice to accept and then retain a given position.