Underskirts

[Since1982]

Some men (me included) have and do use slips and petticoats in cold weather under wide or full skirts to add warmth and fullness to their skirts. Some of these are supposed to show around the edge of our skirts, so they are not "clothing not for discussion" as "underwear" is.

Anyway, around this time of year, I usually mention this at Skirt Cafe. Here is an excellent site for "as manly as you can get them" petticoats to fill out wide or full peasant and other skirts.
Don't be put off by "some" of what they sell as they furnish goods to professional dancers, square dancers, contra dancers, ballet dancers, drag queens, crossdressers, et cetera, et al. As well as anyone else that wears skirts. Their prices are very good and sometimes they have excellent sales.
http://www.glamourboutique.com/
When I was in High School petticoats were in vogue for all skirts. I actually remember some girls stuffing stiff petticoats inside of pencil skirts. They could barely walk with them like that, but it was popular, like other past fads have been. If this helps any members, great, enjoy!

[nicothoe]

I have been thinking about petticoats lately, especially after the missus made one for herself. While I understand the practical aspect of them, I love seeing them peek out from the bottom of the skirt. I am a big fan of skirts with multiple layers of contrasting colors.

[cessna152towser]

I love seeing them peek out from the bottom of the skirt.

I also like to see slips peeking out. Frills and lace peeking out from ladies skirts look very nice, but personally I prefer plain hems for male wear. I have a collection of polyester kilt liners made by Anna Manning Porter in a variety of colours, designed to fit the male waist/hip ratio and with no lace trim. Initially she only produced them in polyester but she now also produces them in cotton. An underliner which is about two inches shorter than the skirt is unlikely to peek out. I have found by exerience that where the differential is only one inch, then as the actions of sitting and bending cause the back of the waistband of the petticoat to get tugged out from under the waistband of the kilt or skirt, it will begin to peek out along the back, so it makes sense to ensure that its colour will match the kilt/skirt and/or the kneesocks.
The advantages of wearing an underliner include:-
Keep the outer garment, which might be an expensive dry clean only kilt, clean of body fluid.
Outer skirt will hang better.
An additional layer of modesty should the skirt fly up.
An additional layer for warmth.
Will silence those who make the association of kilt or skirt wearing men with traditional Scotsmen who go commando, no need for them to approach you as a total stranger and enquire whether you are wearing anything under it.

[Mipi]

Will silence those who make the association of kilt or skirt wearing men with traditional Scotsmen who go commando, no need for them to approach you as a total stranger and enquire whether you are wearing anything under it.

And your kilt or skirt will need much less washing if you wear liner when you're commando....

[Bryan]

Will silence those who make the association of kilt or skirt wearing men with traditional Scotsmen who go commando, no need for them to approach you as a total stranger and enquire whether you are wearing anything under it.

And your kilt or skirt will need much less washing if you wear liner when you're commando....

I have several underskirts for this very reason.

[crfriend]

Note: I am writing this as an individual contributor, not as a moderator.

One of the things that bothers me about the whole "commando" matter is that when it gets talked about it brings attention to things that do not need attention paid. What one wears that's out of the view of the general public is one's own private business; telegraphing information about what one is or may be wearing out of view just makes those around him suspect "dirty old man" or worse. Let's not do that to ourselves; others are already doing it for us -- why reinforce stereotypes needlessly?

[AMM]

One of the things that bothers me about the whole "commando" matter is that when it gets talked about it brings attention to things that do not need attention paid. What one wears that's out of the view of the general public is one's own private business;..

As usual, I'm of a different opinion.

First of all, "out of the view" is a relative thing. As I've mentioned before, if you're wearing a skirt or kilt, what is under it will be visible from time to time, even if you take reasonable precautions. So we need to be conscious of what people will see when this happens. For us to refuse to trade ideas about how to handle (or reduce the likelihood of) the situation in a men-in-skirts community is really just hiding our heads in the sand.

As for "bringing attention:" we are already "bringing attention" simply by wearing a MUG. The kilting community is familiar with how much people want to know "what do you have on under the kilt." If skirt-wearing men don't get as many of these questions, it may be because most folks are still stuck on "why on earth are you wearing a skirt?" In the Contra-dance community where men in skirts aren't such a novelty, I get lots of these questions, not to mention the occasional person pulling up (or down) my skirt.

The issues relating to what is under the skirt or kilt don't go away just because we refuse to talk about them. The practicalities are not intuitively obvious at the first glance. We men were taught about how to manage male clothing -- including underwear -- as we grew up, and we continue to learn from observing other men in places like locker rooms. Women learn how to manage bras, underwear, slips, pantyhose, skirts, etc., from other women in the same way; first from their mothers (or other adult female relatives), then later from their friends. And, yes, women do discuss these things, but mostly in female-only spaces. (One obstacle that the newer generation of women faces in wearing skirts is that many never learned how as children.) Skirts present different challenges from trousers: where will we learn how to handle them, if not from other skirt-wearing men?

I recognize the difficulty of having an on-line discussion of "under skirt" issues without getting into either fetishes or potty-jokes. If it turns out that the SkirtCafe community is not capable of doing it, then I suppose a ban on such discussions at SkirtCafe makes sense. But if that's so, then it just shows how far we the skirt-wearing men are from being able to treat skirts as simply another reasonable clothing choice for men.

[crfriend]

Again, this is "mod hat off" from the viewpoint of an individual contributor.

First of all, "out of the view" is a relative thing. As I've mentioned before, if you're wearing a skirt or kilt, what is under it will be visible from time to time, even if you take reasonable precautions. So we need to be conscious of what people will see when this happens. For us to refuse to trade ideas about how to handle (or reduce the likelihood of) the situation in a men-in-skirts community is really just hiding our heads in the sand.

I understand the logic behind that sentiment, and appreciate it. That we -- as guys -- need to learn how to properly manage these somewhat alien garments (for they're not what we were brought up with), and how to keep things that are best kept covered in the name of decency, is almost axiomatic. Furthermore, there's no body of knowledge that exists outside the male skirt-wearing community on the matter. This comes down, primarily, to a matter of tactics and poise. What I objected to, specifically, in my prior post is the apparent bragging that, "I'm nekkid under this!"; that sort of behaviour strikes me as (1) juvenile and (2) exhibitionist.

I fully understand that lots of guys will decide to venture forth into the world wearing skirted garments without anything else surrounding their loins -- and that's fine by me. It's the bragging that gets my hackles up, and I'd hope for better; we are not Brittney Spears. If an unanticipated gust of wind causes a bit of a "lift" then that's something that just happens and needs to be dealt with via risk-management strategies. It's when the general perception is that it's deliberate happens that it causes the most trouble. Nothing has the power to kill this notion off faster than the general public looking at every bloke in a skirt as a flasher.

It's worth noting that comment on undergarments that, while nominally are "out of view" but alter the aspect of the visible part of the garment (e.g. petticoats), is explicitly permitted and encouraged as a means to "spread the wealth" of individuals' experience. What one wears on his loins borders on the prurient. Tactics and techniques for preserving one's "modesty" -- if that's what one is interested in -- are also on topic (I think). Commentary on how to maximise public exposure is not.

In the Contra-dance community where men in skirts aren't such a novelty, I get lots of these questions, not to mention the occasional person pulling up (or down) my skirt.

What, do you suppose, would happen if a man performed that act on a woman? I'll bet a fiver that either formal charges would be filed with law-enforcement or a swift and decisive slap would be delivered. Why on Earth should it be different the other way 'round? What goes on behind closed doors between playful partners is one thing; what goes on in public settings is something altogether different.

[AMM]

What I objected to, specifically, in my prior post is the apparent bragging that, "I'm nekkid under this!"; that sort of behaviour strikes me as (1) juvenile and (2) exhibitionist.

I did not see it as bragging. I did see it as awkward and uncomfortable.

I think the awkwardness comes because the MIS community, and the SkirtCafe community in particular, is uncomfortable dealing with the feelings that MUG-wearing brings up. There's a certain feeling of being exposed that one feels when wearing an unbifurcated garment, whether you're going "commando" or not, that isn't there when you wear trousers. It makes you feel both a little like a child (because it's usually little children who freely show their bodies) and a little like a woman (because women are expected to display themselves in a sexual way that men are not.)

What one wears on his loins borders on the prurient.

Why is that? For one thing, that view generally isn't applied to women. For another, by that standard, an awful lot of the ads in my daily newspaper are "prurient." At some point, it begins to sound like male sexuality is "taboo," in the original sense of the word: too sacred for profane words/eyes/minds. (By contrast, female sexuality is perfectly suitable for selling cars, soap, and pretty much anything even on prime time TV.)

Tactics and techniques for preserving one's "modesty" -- if that's what one is interested in -- are also on topic (I think). Commentary on how to maximise public exposure is not.

I do not see anything that remotely resembles "commentary on how to maximise public exposure" in this thread, nor have I seen this in (almost) any other thread that ventured into this area.

In the Contra-dance community where men in skirts aren't such a novelty, I get lots of these questions, not to mention the occasional person pulling up (or down) my skirt.

What, do you suppose, would happen if a man performed that act on a woman? .... Why on Earth should it be different the other way 'round?

Because when a woman does it to a man, it is hard to see it as the first step towards rape. (This is where most of the "turnabout" arguments fail -- they ignore how the long-standing oppression of women by men affects every interaction between men and women.)

You're also assuming that it is necessarily a woman who's doing the lifting or pulling -- in fact, kilt-wearers get it from both men and women.