skirtcafe.org

crfriend wrote:Is the pig real or a statue?

Rompers... Do you have to completely undress to avail yourself of the sanitary facilities, or are "adult briefs" recommended?

Pig statue.......I think
As for undressing they have a fly zip

Well that takes care of #1 - its going to be tricky for #2 without an almost total disrobe !

How about a 24" zipper from front to back, sewn into the inseam



Uncle Al

It would be easier to use pop fasteners as in bodies and other similar one-piece garments as frequently, or currently not-so-frequently, worn by women.

I don't "romp", I "frolic".

Both have the same definitions essentially on google, however with "romp", I seem to conjure up images of leapfrogging for some reason. Romping seems like something a toddler would do.

I suppose the real difference is... you "romp" when you're a child and can't stand up right, you "frolic" when you're adult and don't give a damn anymore!


I don't romp, I frolic, and I've got the allergies to prove it!

Ah, yes. I've heard about this curious little fad. Not my cup of tea, but hey, to each their own.

They're not my cup of tea, but I'm still glad for them. Broadly accepted men's clothing is so very limited, as we know well. This product does represent quite a departure from that realm, relatively speaking. Anything that chips away at the walls stands to benefit the general cause of men's fashion freedom, in my opinion.

Saw this and decided to post it.

Dude wears a romper through New York's toughest neighborhoods

YouTube star QPark strutted through the streets of New York City clad in a male romper. "I was expecting a lot of negativity, but was really pleasantly surprised by the reception," the 37-year-old said of wearing the trendy one-piece for 10 hours straight.

http://nypost.com/video/dude-wears-a-ro ... e=mail_app

Fred in Skirts wrote:Dude wears a romper through New York's toughest neighborhoods

YouTube star QPark strutted through the streets of New York City clad in a male romper. "I was expecting a lot of negativity, but was really pleasantly surprised by the reception," the 37-year-old said of wearing the trendy one-piece for 10 hours straight.

http://nypost.com/video/dude-wears-a-ro ... e=mail_app

New York City has a reputation of being somewhat culturally diverse. I'd say the locals there have seen it all at some point....

moonshadow wrote:New York City has a reputation of being somewhat culturally diverse. I'd say the locals there have seen it all at some point....

Indeed they have as it is not against the law for anyone to be topless on the streets of NYC. Yes that includes the women. The last time I was watching one of the street cams of Times Square I saw one such naked from the waist up and wearing a pair of shorts that left little to the imagination.

Whilst I have not seen anyone in our store topless, male or female, the recent heatwave has certainly brought out dresses that stop just under where the ass starts, translucent tops with no bra but not quite clear enough to see detail if you know what I mean, shorts that are cut so high. Sometimes it's all I can do to not drool or turn round and walk backwards. And the men - sometimes shorts but generally still jeans. Yawn.

BUTT - tell me what we were wearing in the Garden of Eden before the Big Apple event ?
Afterward we had the adventure in the Fig Leaf exposition - minimal coverage the rule of not so much thumb.
We have seen episodes of "Who wrote the Bible" on TV butt no where is there a book scroll piece of parchment
dictating what is to be worn by whom aka dress code except for that confusing passage about men wearing
women's clothes to be cowards in battle or ambushing the enemy while in disguise.

Now as for those ROMPERS not terribly practical as the theme here at SC is to abandon the twin stovepipe
fashion for the open bottom culture no matter where you draw the (hem) line !
Yes they look cute on the little ones and that is where the issue should remain.

r.m.anderson wrote:We have seen episodes of "Who wrote the Bible" on TV butt no where is there a book scroll piece of parchment
dictating what is to be worn by whom aka dress code except for that confusing passage about men wearing
women's clothes to be cowards in battle or ambushing the enemy while in disguise.

And as we have freedom of religion, (or from religion) we as individuals are not obliged to adhere to religious dogma if we choose not to. Yes that means even Christians within their right to just outright ignore that old Hebrew guideline. Our personal views and opinions on our creator are just that... personal and opinions.

Further, as I've always said, if God has an issue with what I'm wearing, let her come down and tell me herself.

Yes they look cute on the little ones and that is where the issue should remain.

Agreed! I dislike the style and I dislike the name.

To each their own, but it will be a cold day in hell before I wear one.... or a warm day in Minnesnowda!

moonshadow wrote:And as we have freedom of religion, (or from religion) we as individuals are not obliged to adhere to religious dogma if we choose not to.

Whilst the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States supposedly grants us freedom of religion it foes not explicitly grant us freedom from it. There is much religion-based meddling in the lives of the everyday person whether they're necessarily aware of it or not, and it's pervasive. Much of the bigotry and most of the outright hate in government is directly traceable to it (whether we're speaking of the battle over abortion, the rough row that the homosexual population have, or the Trump's Travel Ban), so we very clearly do not enjoy freedom from. One country got it right, and that was both a recent one and one that is no longer with us.

Yes that means even Christians within their right to just outright ignore that old Hebrew guideline.

At least any of the mainstream sects that are based in the New Testament are; those based on the Old are not, and those that adhere to many of the tenets of the Old whilst being ostensibly based on the New do not.

Further, as I've always said, if God has an issue with what I'm wearing, let her come down and tell me herself.

Astonishingly, gods are cowards when it comes to matters such as this. Well, they're either cowards or they simply don't exist.

crfriend wrote:...Much of the bigotry and most of the outright hate in government is directly traceable to it...

Ahh, Jenn and I were having a discussion about that the other day, when she got into a small spat with someone on hatebook (facebook) running down a 10 year old boy who was posting a video on how to apply makeup. The woman in question started preaching dogma, how this is an "abomination" and a sin, so on and so forth. Jenn attempted to put the woman in her place. I explained while it was decent of Jenn to take on the "good fight", she was ultimately, wasting her time. As you never will change a bible thumping bigots mind, and that her efforts would be better spent ignoring the haters and simply posting a little praise and encouragement on the 10 year old's wall...

I furthered my assessment of religion in America by explaining that in my opinion, organized religion has NOTHING to do with saving souls or bringing people to God, nor does it have anything to do with bringing any sort of peace or solace to anyone involved. It is nothing more than a means of CONTROL. That's why so many politicians enforce so much religious dogma, because they too have their own world view of what they want society to look like... boys dress this way and girls dress that way. I hold that God never said anything about what anyone was wearing, and may it strike me dead where I stand if I'm in error. No- those rules and laws were the works of the prophets of the time speaking on behalf of God. Was it genuine? Nobody in the present era can possibly know. So some rely on faith. Now if someone wants to adhere to 3,000 old laws then that's fine with me, but personally, I will resist any attempt to have my life ruled by people who died three millenniums ago.

Jane Doe Facebooker has her own world view on what society should look like. It's a vision that makes her comfortable in her own little world, and she uses "religion" to enforce her views onto everyone else. If she really gave a damn about the 10 year old boy with the makeup tutorial, she'd leave him alone and let him be. No- she doesn't care about him, nor his salvation, she is simply disgusted by the notion of a 10 year old male child, or any male for that matter engaging in such a blasphemy as applying makeup to his own face, and so she plays God and cast her stones in his direction.

Everyone's a judge....

...and those that adhere to many of the tenets of the Old whilst being ostensibly based on the New do not.

Ain't it though.... Many like to pick and choose which biblical laws to follow, ignoring their own personal shortcomings and using the bible to slam people who don't fit within their view of what a "normal person" should be, or look like. See the paragraph above- it's all about CONTROL, and has NOTHING to do with God or any sort of divine salvation.

Astonishingly, gods are cowards when it comes to matters such as this. Well, they're either cowards or they simply don't exist.

Well, my door is still open. I've been waiting two years for this "God" of theirs to come down here and say something to me, but so far... nothing. And I don't want to hear that crap from anyone if I should come into a car accident, or get fired, or diagnosed with some bizarre cancer of flesh eating bacteria that this was "a sign from God". If this "God" of theirs has to completely ruin my life because I choose to wear something with one tubes rather than two, when a simple "tap on the shoulder" from above would suffice, then this God is not worthy of worship, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend eternity with such an entity. Satan seems much easier to get along with....