This is precisely one of the reasons why this forum and community exists -- to fight the narrow-mindedness of the "same-old-same-old".Grok wrote:I took a look at a number of different forums, regarding jewelry worn by men. Generally, the people posting wanted to restrict men to the same old/same old.
What about watches worn as bracelets? Multiple rings? Earrings?Permissible-a watch, perhaps a ring. Items traditionally worn on clothing, such as tie clasps and cufflinks. Otherwise, people used terms such as weird or effeminate.
I tend to wear two watches, mainly out of habit from when I needed to keep track of a half-dozen time-zones simultaneously; one still runs on UTC full-time with its outer bezel set to something else useful. Sometimes I carry a pocket-watch (I own several, one of which is well over a century old) with the inevitable ornate chain. Are any of those artefacts "weird or effeminate"?
Sometimes, what onlookers may envisage as "effeminate" may simply be tools required for some other purpose. For instance, long hair is now at least tolerated on men, if not fully accepted. Sometimes long hair needs to be restrained to keep it out of other things (think high-speed machinery), and that requires "tools". What differentiates, then, a plain elastic from a barrette or even a bow? Those aren't "girly" things (and dammit I wish that term wasn't pejorative) but simply "long hair things" -- tools, if you will.
The notion of "tools" extends into the realm of skirts as well. What is a petticoat other than a modifier of how a particular skirt behaves when worn, or an added layer of warmth in the winter? Legwear? That's another tool in the box for us to use to alter appearance whilst still being nothing more than "blokes in skirts". Not all tools are suitable for all personalities, but it's important to keep an open mind.
As has been said, "Minds are like parachutes. They only work when open." Abandon preconception and see what something is in the context it's used in.