skirtcafe.org

Just spotted this on a page of Andre Pejic pics. His very male 'consort' is dressed in a long kilt suit, which in my view is spoilt by the trousers underneath the kilt. It's very elegant otherwise. Tom K.

I rather like that kilt suit (without the trousers). Where did you find the pictures?

Have fun,


Ian.

It's a bit of a minefield. The photo(s) were by Yang Wang. The other model is Miguel Iglesias. Googling these, and the site 'tumblr' got me back to a couple more of that outfit, closely followed by pages of overtly homosexual stuff. They appear to be all as queer as.......
The title: backstage Gaultier Men's fall/winter 12. Paris (the occasion) is another clue.
Of the two other pics I dug up, one shows that the pin near the bottom doesn't even hold the kilt together, as I suppose it should. Tom

Kirbstone wrote:Of the two other pics I dug up, one shows that the pin near the bottom doesn't even hold the kilt together, as I suppose it should.

I've never done up my kilt pin. It has never occurred to me to do it. It just helps to weigh down the apron of the kilt. The overlap of the two layers of the apron is more than enough to cover my modesty!

Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

skirtyscot wrote:I've never done up my kilt pin. It has never occurred to me to do it. It just helps to weigh down the apron of the kilt. The overlap of the two layers of the apron is more than enough to cover my modesty!

Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

No. You are quite correct, the pin is all about weight. Pinning the two aprons together tends to result in damage to the material if the pin gets put under tension.

Have fun,


Ian.

For starters, that doesn't look like a kilt at all. It looks more like a wrap-skirt without a lot of overlap.

On kilt-pins. I'm given to understand that it's the mass of the thing that helps keep the outer apron down and that one is not supposed to pin through both as that will likely lead to tears (something to be avoided in an upper 3-digit garment).

As a Scotsman, can I say how good it is to have an Englishman and an American confirm that I've been wearing my kilt properly!

crfriend wrote:For starters, that doesn't look like a kilt at all. It looks more like a wrap-skirt without a lot of overlap.

That kind of explains why the model is wearing the pants inside....

Just resurrecting this thread to post a pic. I came across today. I've always been an advocate of nice big pockets in skirts/dresses and this illustrates just that. However the silhouette and message here is something else. Pejic again.

T.

Are you sure that's a pocket? It looks to me like an apron made from something dead----Prob'ly a roadkill
edited once to correct a mistype.

"Roadkill". I love it!
The thing about pockets is that they work placed anywhere in skirts where you have a waistband to support the weight. The pocketed dresses I have have the side pockets right on the side seam, supported thus from the armpit, thus the weight doesn't pull the dress out of shape or spoil the hang/swing of the skirt.
I thought the skirtsuit above really good. I really detest trousers under skirts too.

Discussions that take this sort of turn deserve a scolding.

Before we get too pious and gender-identity-paranoid, we should remember, first, that runway fashion is ART...it seldom has much to do with anything marketed or intended for the real world to consume. We should look at it as art, enjoy it, or pass it by, but not point fingers at each other because we have some preconception of the limits of acceptable unbifurcation for men, or the limits of unbifurcated fashion discussion in these fora.

Some artists wrap entire islands in colored cellophane, then photograph it. I don't get it, and it seems a waste of time and money, but I can look at it without going into hysterics, or pointing angry fingers at those who happen to like it.

Second, we are largely a group of aging men here, and supposedly mature in more than our wrinkles, weight, and gray hair; can't we suppress our curmudgeonhood long enough to look at something different without starting a feud with each other? Are we still so insecure that we fear an association with some who we would regard as more feminine than ourselves? If so, we belong back in trousers, IMHO. And, believe me, to the observing world, the distinction between a feminine man in a skirt/dress and any other man in a skirt or dress is fine at best. Balkanization over something as meaningless as how macho is macho enough, among men in skirts, will be the destruction of this small movement. And balkanization in the Cafe will be the steady decline of this group.

Sometimes this group reminds me of African-Americans who historically shunned each other for the variable hues and darkness of their skins, when, as a group, they all faced the same discrimination in a white-dominated society. This is the origin of the old expression "A case of the pot calling the kettle 'black' ". In the big picture much more was gained by standing together in mutual support, as victims of common discrimination, rather than discriminating among themselves.

We should remember exactly where we, as a group, stand in the social order of the world at large. It saddens me that any group who stands out as curiously in the general population as skirted men do would still be hypocritical and smug enough to castigate other males wearing alternative fashion as appearing "too feminine". In the big picture, these are our brothers, and we gain more when we all stand together. If we want acceptance of unbifurcated clothing on men, that acceptance will need to be more inclusive than we in this group seem to be at times. Part of building acceptance, by necessity, means challenging preconceptions of masculine fashion.

~smh~ People who live in glass houses...

dillon wrote:Discussions that take this sort of turn deserve a scolding.

Before we get too pious and gender-identity-paranoid, we should remember, first, that runway fashion is ART...it seldom has much to do with anything marketed or intended for the real world to consume. We should look at it as art, enjoy it, or pass it by, but not point fingers at each other because we have some preconception of the limits of acceptable unbifurcation for men, or the limits of unbifurcated fashion discussion in these fora.

I agree with Dillon's assertion above. I suspect we have been too harsh and judgmental about catwalk fashion in the past. If one looks at it as art, and not something necessarily to be emulated in the real world, then it takes on an aura of its own. In fact, we've managed to drive off or otherwise discourage a couple of guys who, whilst having remarkable connections with their own practical aesthetic (i.e. that which they'd wear on the street), followed catwalk fashion quite closely even if they didn't incorporate it wholly (or sometimes even partly) into their own ideas.

It's true that some of the catwalk imagery is quite jarring to the senses, but then again good art is supposed to affect the viewer -- that's the whole point. So, some might find some of it repellant -- it affected them. It did the job the artist intended by getting a reaction -- any reaction.

The purpose of art is to promote thought, and not necessarily to be practical.

Kirbstone wrote:It's a bit of a minefield. The photo(s) were by Yang Wang. The other model is Miguel Iglesias. Googling these, and the site 'tumblr' got me back to a couple more of that outfit, closely followed by pages of overtly homosexual stuff. They appear to be all as queer as.......
The title: backstage Gaultier Men's fall/winter 12. Paris (the occasion) is another clue.
Of the two other pics I dug up, one shows that the pin near the bottom doesn't even hold the kilt together, as I suppose it should.

Miguel Iglesias kiltsuit.jpg

Miguel Iglesias 2.jpg

Tom

This dude should put off his trousers to make some sense and put some argyle tights on instead. It is like an oversized breathable underpants. Alternatively he could have chosen otk socks or knee high socks.