So what exactly is your point?

[Pythos]

I have come across several posts from some members that talk of appropriateness of one's attire. I have been accused of having an "athletic" look that belongs no-place else but the gym. There is even talk of that it shouldn't even be seen outside the gym. That I should go in the gym in jeans and T-shirt, use the locker room to change into my workout attire, and then using it again following my work out.

I have to ask, what the heck do you mean when you say this?

You do realize that a vast majority of people think men wearing skirts is almost always inappropriate in all situations excepting role play in the bedroom or on the stage.

There was a time not so long ago leggings were acceptable (just barely) as unisex, non-athletic wear.

I am making this post because I am just fed up with this attitude.

One of the people who holds this attitude has quite openly stated that he basically insults his grand daughter for wearing leggings as regular wear.

What exactly is the point of this? Does it make you feel better pushing your loved one toward being a sheep? Do you feel the same about people wearing sweat suits in the grocery store?, how about people wearing jeans in just about any occasion? How about girls running around in public wearing the equivalent of pajamas in public? What about men going about in what is nothing more than an undershirt?

Jeans originally were not to be worn in social functions. They were strictly work attire for heavy labor. Now look. They are every where, including social functions. What makes something appropriate and something inappropriate? Who makes those rules? You? Me?

Believe it or not but a plain pair of leggings can be dressed up quite nicely, and give an impression of a complete and non-athletic outfit. I myself have gotten compiments when in some of my outfits with such in place of regular pants, and the shirt worn as a tunic.

With my incident in the old town I was at, I was essentially at tourist trap USA. All walk of life were here, and most were in jeans. There were some overweight women in white shorts who really should not have been. There were a couple of pajamaed girls, and one or two "trashy" skirts (way too short, with a crummy top, being worn by a not so appealing females.) There was a nice white minidress visible, while her boyfriend ran his hands where he shouldn't in public. My attire was not all that out of place, aside from the fact not one other person was in such. One of the people here I am posting about basically said that I was wearing something inappropriate for where I was. What exactly was appropriate then? jeans, t-shirt? How original.

My view on these rules is toss em. They are out of date, virtually ignored by jeans wearers, and limiting for no good reason, and oh yea, really really sexist.

[crfriend]

Pythos brings up some interesting points here -- points that we (as in those who would make skirt-wearing completely acceptable for men) might do well to ponder. I especially like the commentary on "jeans" (nee "dungarees"), although I don't much like the outcome that "expanding boundaries" caused for them (that they're everywhere now). So, if we're to widen the acceptance of skirts on guys, we'd do well to accept some of the other "changes" that have happened over the years; else we'll get branded as hypocrites.

2008-07-27T12:10 -- edited to correct incorrect word usage

[Zorba]

My view on these rules is toss em. They are out of date, virtually ignored by jeans wearers, and limiting for no good reason, and oh yea, really really sexist.

Not just that, remember that these "rules", like almost everything else are something that SOMEONE MADE UP! They have no basis in what I call "Ultimate Reality".

[Milfmog]

Good post Pythos.

Whether a particular style of clothing is "appropriate" or not often comes down to how socially comfortable the wearer feels in it under the particular circumstances. The world is generally more casual these days than it used to be, whether that is good or bad is a moot point; it just is and we might as well get used to it. More casual means less rules, it's just a shame that less rules for men's clothing seems to have lead to greater uniformity rather than greater variety.

Have fun,


Ian.

[ChrisM]

Be advised also that there is broad spectrum of acceptability across nations.

I was surprised to see in London the most macho / blue collar / yobbish of men wearing mid-calf trousers that in the USA would get them laughed out of town. In the USA "capris" or "Clam diggers" (as these trousers would be termed) are perceived as effeminate. Clearly in London that is far from the case.

My point? Simply to offer this one illustration that cultural norms are (still refreshingly) diverse across the societies that we here in the Café inhabit. So when somebody labels some garb as "inappropriate" please rest assured that they are speaking for their own cultural perspective - at most.

Tks...Chris M.

[Peter v]

Thank you, Pythos, there have been some remarks placed of which I have had my own thoughts about, feeling that they were misplaced. And you were certainly not the only one who seemed to think that. I would say, it was unfortunately placed.

There is an important statement made, we are all free to voice our personal tastes, but please state them as such, and don't make the mistake of stating your opinion for a fact. So if I may do that, please correct me in a courteous manner.

There have been especially the last few weeks in my opinion somewhat discriminative statements made towards all men who wear anything other that "manly"( for want of a better word) ( and whatever that entails, but to one very near side to men wearing pants.) There are two issues, the "we" issue, being ALL men in skirts here together, being members of the same fraternity, skirt cafe. And men who although they don't state it are very obviously being very sectarian in their postings. Those men seem to me the ones "pushing" the very narrow skirts wearing, 1st step up from pants wearing typ of guy.( ie the very manly type) Nothing wrong with being such a wearer. But think of it like "a man is only "manly" if he wears jeans" good enough, but that means he cannot wear a suit, in which he is of course still the same man but "tidied up". That same man may wear suits continuously for weeks at a time, but then return to the good old jeans. Don't limit the options. I feel that some men are not posting in the "we" manner although their posts would seem to be about skirt wearing men in general. Which I think is the only way to post regarding "men in skirts".

Who are the we? "We" are the men who who wear skirts in all their diversity, and are members of the skirt cafe.
Amongst "us" "we" have members who wear skirts in the same manner, and group together, those men obviously having found the same interests amongst them. But "we" all live under the same roof.

If any one of "us" ( meaning one of the members of the cafe, thus "us") wants to discuss his pleasures, wants etc with any describable style, be free to do so, but please state the style. There is room in the cafe for all styles. "belonging" to any describable style doesn't exclude them from wearing skirts in any other manner. Open mindedness should prevail.
Unity is one thing "we" really need, if "we" are to profit from each other's presence here on the cybernet cafe.

In short, some thought to the postings, with regard to respect, to ettiket, to whether the posting as one about men in skirts or a specific style or topic. Be sure not to place any discriminatory posts.

There are fashion differences, laws and mentality differences, even I may sometimes forget to state that "In the Netherlands," or In Europe, this and that.... And others may forget to state "Here in the UK, or Scotland, or perhaps The US," so that it is clear for all to see where the statement is based upon. Or "In New York, men can walk naked in the street, and In California, everybody on the street gets arrested. Or whatever. Defining the post makes it more understandable.

Left over is just old fashioned personal meanings, ways of thinking, which can be long outdated, even bigotry. That is very possibly the case with the leggings statement. But it is not so much the way of thought that is a problem, personal characters and thought make up for a enormous and neded diversity, it is possibly more the way it was stated.

For the record, leggings are part of the fashion scene with skirts. As long as nobody states that leggings must be worn by all men in skirts, what is the problem? And you may wear anything all year in the most criminal neighbourhood without anything happening, then take one step outside, and be beaten up, possibly by a man in a three piece suit, but with a discriminatory sick mind. Of all the extreme things that can be worn, leggings certainly are not with them. They are by choice very functional and or eklegant. Men can wear what they damend well like, where and when they like, it is only the people they meet and how they react that make it a wise decision or not. There is only one way to find out, wear what YOU want, and see. That will also educate those who see you, by letting them see that men can and do wear other fashion than pants.

[Peter v]

Be advised also that there is broad spectrum of acceptability across nations.

I was surprised to see in London the most macho / blue collar / yobbish of men wearing mid-calf trousers that in the USA would get them laughed out of town. In the USA "capris" or "Clam diggers" (as these trousers would be termed) are perceived as effeminate. Clearly in London that is far from the case.

My point? Simply to offer this one illustration that cultural norms are (still refreshingly) diverse across the societies that we here in the Café inhabit. So when somebody labels some garb as "inappropriate" please rest assured that they are speaking for their own cultural perspective - at most.

Tks...Chris M.

Very interesting, "we"the members of a Dutch skirt forum have had several discussionds about those pants too.
Strange that some people seem to be so unaccepting about men in capri pants, as there are men's shorts, men's fretime trousers with upper and lower pants parts unzipable, for different lengths. What is femme about the pants? Nothing. Just small mindedness if you ask me, the same way that people probably look at men in anything other than pants.