Need clarification.

[Pythos]

I am confused by this notion of too girly that several here have opined about.

Taking my style into account. (if you don't know it, go ahead an go to photos, and click the link for pythos) Is it "too Girly"? Aside from a skirt and hose, every item and style I am wearing is "masculine" The only time I wear makeup is if it is part of a halloween costume, or I am headed out to a goth club (A very rare experience these days, thank you oil companies).

As I have stated many times I think the breaking point with styles between acceptable freestyle and too girly is when certain colors and patterens are worn. When the wearer puts on a wig with a very feminine hair style. When the person puts on fake breasts, and hips, or when the person takes on a feminine name, and attitude.

I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR THIS.

But I also do not want to be limited in my style to only skirts. I have very pale, and patchy legs, they burn at the slightest sunlight over 5 minutes hence my wearing of leggings opposed to shorts when not skirted. I personally do not like shorts. I find them to look childish, even the board shorts.

High heels to me are an enigma. I know the history of the high heel, and know that it was originally an article worn by fighting men on horseback. It was meant for a more positive engagement in the riding stirrups. I also know that nobility (male) wore high heels and stockings to accentuate their legs (yes, their legs for those that say men's legs are to be hidden). Men took great pride in their appearance, and they did not hold to this idiotic macho crap that is all over the place these days. Now on that note, personally I think too high a heel gets into the CD, TV range of styles.

Others here have stated that this place is about what is about the skirt and not what is under it. Why?

I think the idea of anyone walking around in a skirted garment sans underwear is wrong, male or female. I have given my reasons why so I just ask that you use your imaginations. But some skirts require a specific type of foundation garment so as not to show lines.

Whether some people here like it or not, hosiery is an integral part of a well assembled skirted garment in most cases. With that there are two styles of hosiery we have. Stockings and garters which to me are not only impractically complex, but also WAAAAAy too girly. (there are hold ups to, which personally I don't like the appearance of they remind me of Grannie's knee highs), and tights or pantyhose.

Pantyhose and tights have many styles, colors,and designs. There is also the comfort question of what to wear under them. These should be something that can be discussed on this site, even if under the other category, which is on this site.

Let me finish this post by saying. We are all in this together, despite what some say. The viewing public for the present views men in any skirt as an oddball, whether they have burkenstocks and socks on, or hose and heels. We are all oddballs to the general uneducated public. If people here want fashion freedom, or GASP fashion equality, we have got to stop sniping at one another. Constructive criticism is good, and in some cases needed. But flat out insults, and statements like "you're too girly" and "I am not we", does nothing for us.

To coin a phrase, United we stand, divided we fall.

[Departed Member]

High heels to me are an enigma. I know the history of the high heel, and know that it was originally an article worn by fighting men on horseback. It was meant for a more positive engagement in the riding stirrups. I also know that nobility (male) wore high heels and stockings to accentuate their legs (yes, their legs for those that say men's legs are to be hidden). Men took great pride in their appearance, and they did not hold to this idiotic macho crap that is all over the place these days. Now on that note, personally I think too high a heel gets into the CD, TV range of styles.

With all due respect, you're reading history with 21st Century spectacles. High heels of the present have no correlation with those worn many centuries ago. They weren't even 'high', as such, just enough to maintain grip on the stirrup, but not enough to unbalance the rider when dismounted. No more, in fact than the average 'instep' in a modern man's shoe. As for the nobilities appearance in the dim and distant past (we're a couple of centuries back, you know!), with lace, ruffles and what you will, you've missed the reality - they were the ultimate in 'MACHO' - in their day! If anything, compared to their countrymen, the disparity was enormous. Again, slightly higher heels were worn to accentuate (create!)height, not legs(!), much as, indeed, some of the extremist styles of the 1970s did!

[crfriend]

I am confused by this notion of too girly that several here have opined about.

Rest assured that you are not alone. Part of the problem is that there are no universally agreed-upon definitions for "masculine" and "feminine" and that leaves the interpretation up to each individual's opinion and intuition, both of which can be fallible; they also seldom line up exactly between individuals. Further muddying the water is the fact that we, as "skirtsmen", are deliberately bending the widely-held, but historically inaccurate, view that skirts are strictly women's garments. Compounding the confusion even more is that the average male seems to be quite uneasy about his "masculinity", and that sets the "herd mentality" into motion.

From the above, you can see that we're very much in uncharted waters with this, and that without any well-defined -- and universally accepted -- guidelines we're left to our own devices to determine what's "too much" for us.

As I have stated many times I think the breaking point with styles between acceptable freestyle and too girly is when certain colors and patterens are worn.

The "patterns and colours" are merely visual cues that one's brain interprets into something -- something that may be incorrect in any given context. It seems true that most of us here, I think, view light floral prints and some pastel colours as "too much" (note that I'm deliberately avoiding gender terms here); the visual cues are powerful enough to make us recoil. However, darker florals can work rather well. Take, "urban camo" for instance, that pale purple/grey print that "urban warriors" wear: that could be construed as a pastel colour as it's not very saturated; however, that's not viewed with any sort of suspicion when a guy puts it on. It's the way our brains process things.

When the wearer puts on a wig with a very feminine hair style. When the person puts on fake breasts, and hips, or when the person takes on a feminine name, and attitude. [...]

I believe that the majority of Cafe patrons are in agreement that this is role-play -- and demeaning role-play at that -- and is well beyond the purview of the Cafe. There are places better suited to folks who want to go down that path.

I also do not want to be limited in my style to only skirts. I have very pale, and patchy legs, they burn at the slightest sunlight over 5 minutes hence my wearing of leggings opposed to shorts when not skirted.

This is a matter of simple practicality, and is also a problem I suffer from -- I burn like crazy; hence one of the reasons for my preference of longer skirts. I also avoid going out in the sun during the noon-time hours. Leggings, however, are a style that have a lot of societal baggage attached -- and I don't know precisely why -- so tend to arouse criticism, rightly or wrongly.

I personally do not like shorts. I find them to look childish, even the board shorts.

This is your brain playing tricks on you again. One of the things we get hammered into us as we grow up is that grown-up men don't wear shorts under normal circumstances, and when they are, they're usually the fairly hideous "Bermuda short" style. The term "ever since he got out of short pants" as a virtual synonym for attaining adulthood is a reflection of this.

High heels to me are an enigma. I know the history of the high heel, and know that it was originally an article worn by fighting men on horseback. It was meant for a more positive engagement in the riding stirrups. [...]

I doubt that anybody here would regard a moderate heel (up to about 2 to 3 inches), especially if fairly "chunky" as anything strange; many of us were around in the 1970s when shoes like that were perfectly common and accepted on guys. The "coyboy boot" is also well-accepted even with their sometimes-exaggerated heel (morphed from the original completely-functional style to an "aesthetic"). Where the brain starts to say, "strange" on men is where the heel is extreme, either in width (the stiletto) or height; put quite bluntly, I find extreme styles both impractical and unappealing. Note that the dimensions of one's feet play a role in this as well: someone with a size-twelve foot can "get away" with a higher heel than someone with a size-nine -- it's all in the ratios. Why women wear extreme styles is beyond me, but they do so for a perceived reason, and I guess it works (viz. "f*** me shoes"). This may be one of the reasons that set men's teeth on edge with the thought of such appliances of torture on other men's feet.

Others here have stated that this place is about what is about the skirt and not what is under it. Why?

This is a question of decency, pure and simple. What's on display to the public at large is, by policy, open to discussion, but what is supposed to remain hidden from public view is just that -- "unmentionables". After all, the discussion of one's undergarments is not something that's usually undertaken in polite company, and almost certainly not in the presence of strangers. Legwear straddles the boundary, but for the sake of decorum I believe it best that we not discuss in great detail the pieces parts that are out of public view; it's just "too much information". I don't care what you've got on under your {fill-in-the-blank}, and I don't need to be told about it either.

What is your reaction to being asked what you have on "under" by a stranger? I know mine, and it's not a nice one.

But some skirts require a specific type of foundation garment so as not to show lines.

True, but the sorts of garments you refer to are likely not the sort of garments that would likely be worn by most here. Some of us might be able to carry the look off, and to those all I can say is, "Go for it" (but ask your wife or girlfriend for hints and tricks with underwear); but for the rest of us who are on the losing side of gravity, have "Dunlop's disease", or just generally don't have the physique for it we have our own requirements.

Whether some people here like it or not, hosiery is an integral part of a well assembled skirted garment in most cases. With that there are two styles of hosiery we have. Stockings and garters which to me are not only impractically complex, but also WAAAAAy too girly. (there are hold ups to, which personally I don't like the appearance of they remind me of Grannie's knee highs), and tights or pantyhose.

Again, we have the brain playing tricks on us -- and societal baggage galore. In many instances thigh-highs are more practical than up-to-the-waist hosiery, but we're (at least in the US) saturated with the notion that they're "just for sexual purposes" -- part of the "game of the hunt", if you will -- and serve no real functional purpose, and that contaminates our perception of them as a practical garment. True, the hardware of the suspender-belt and whatnot looks like a pain, but done right, it's pitch it on in the morning and it stays put during the day (hint: knickers go *over* the garters, not under). If we can teach our brains to reject such conceptual contamination we'd be better for it.

To coin a phrase, United we stand, divided we fall.

Or, put somewhat differently, "We should all hang together, else we're going to hang separately."

[Ray]

Pythos,

I don't think you look girlie at all. You look like a guy who has found a fashion that he is very comforable with, and that fashion works well given your build etc.

No, not girlie at all. You have almost neutralised the clothing you are wearing - i.e. made it gender neutral.

My opinion only, of course.

[SkirtedViking]

I haven't seen a woman bothered if she is too masculine, for them everything from the men's apparel is unisex, so why should you bother, people are equal! Some of them even argue that there is a woman's tie as there are such trousers, snickers etc. so if you wear it as a man the same logic implies that a skirt worn by a man is a man's skirt,or top,or heels no matter how stereotypically girly that might be. If plain and blue is the man's pattern and lace and pink is woman's why are there so many women in plain blue stuff?

[crfriend]

No, not girlie at all. You have almost neutralised the clothing you are wearing - i.e. made it gender neutral.

I think that more to the point, Pythos took the look and made it his own. That's key. Arguing whether something is "too girly" is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- it's pointless because there are no objective criteria to back up any argument made.

As far as Pythos' look goes, he's definitely got the body for it and may as well flaunt it whilst he has it! I do not believe that I could pull the look off (although I'll defer full judgement to Sapphire), but that doesn't mean I'm going to give Pythos a hard time for it as that'd come across as jealousy. I just wish I had the sack to do such experimentation when I was his age....

So, it's not about "gender neutrality" (or androgeny, if taken to an extreme), but rather whether one produces a look that's (1) believable (unlike "runway fashion") and (2) aesthetically pleasing.

Side note: Have you ever noticed that there is no male equivalent in the English lexicon for, "You go, girl!"? I wonder why this is so.

[sapphire]

Are you referring to the cheongsam look or the cat suit look?

Very few people can pull off the cat suit look. One has to have a perfect body. Diana Rigg did an excellent job, so do most of the superheros we see in recent films, and most recently Will Smith.

As for the cheongsam, they are made for both men and women and can be floor length or shirt length. The difference is the fit. Mens and womens bodies are proportioned differently.

Carl, you would look great in one if it was tailored to your body, your proportions. I don't know if you remember, but on several occassions our friend Dmitrios came into the resturant wearing a cheongsam shirt made of heavy, natural, off white cotton that had wooden buttons No one thought anything of it

[Pythos]

Actually sapphire I was refering to my other skirted outfits I have posted on that site. Not just the chenongsam, and catsuit.

I have several pictures of me in various skirted outfits.

I get very little feedback on them, which can either mean they are good, or they really reallly stink.

[Bri]

I believe that the majority of Cafe patrons are in agreement that this is role-play -- and demeaning role-play at that -- and is well beyond the purview of the Cafe. There are places better suited to folks who want to go down that path.

I don't think I would say it's demeaning really, just something better left for a fetish forum and not this forum.

[sapphire]

Pythos (and others),
Please do not be upset, but I rarely look at pictures. I have a slow internet connection and usually do not have the patience to wait while the pictures load.

I do have to say that many of the looks that I have seen are great and that a lot of you guys have developed your own sense of style that really works for you. And there are numerous personal styles represented.

[Sasquatch]

I agree that Pythos can pull off a "radical" freestyle look that, on him, can only be described as "bitchin!" (in a positive way), but a similar style applied upon most of us would just look silly.

I remarked before that it's probably a good thing that I'm 6'4" with size 14 feet. If I weren't a gargantuan freak I'd probably have a closet full of skirts, maryjanes, and boots. But we have to find our own styles that either work for us or in which we are more or less at ease.

I won't deny that I've seen in this forum pics of men wearing styles that I would say shouldn't be worn by them or any man, but, as I've also said, I think this forum is a big enough tent to accomodate a broad range of fashions and opinions, and I hope it remains so. The single big rule for posters here is they are presenting themselves as men, and not attempting to pass as women. And some push this rule to the limit, approaching fully cross-dressed in every respect except the wig and false breasts.

And while I'm not personally fond of that style, and at times even disturbed by it, I accept it as belonging, at least peripherally, in this forum. My reasoning is that the moderators have drawn the line at an appropriate point. If the line was drawn based on the preferred styles of those like myself (perhaps a bit more conservative than the median) this would be a far narrower forum and, frankly, would become even more dull than it often is (no offense meant - we can't be interesting all the time) and would exclude some of the more interesting correspondents. And I also know that there are members more conservative than myself, and I know that I might be excluded if the line was drawn at their preferred style limit.

I hope we all remember that the verb criticize means to make judgements as to merits and faults. In a topic like fashion, most all crticism is subjective. We should look for the merit in each other's choices whenever possible, but we shouldn't bash those who point out faults, or who simply say "it isn't to my taste." If we want to remain a vital sounding board, we should apply criticism politely and reasonably and challenge it politely and rationally. At times we all get defensive when we think we're under personal attack. I think the best tack in that case is to begin your rebuttal with "I presume you didn't intend those comments personally, but I feel that you misread...misunderstood..." etc. In other words, begin your rebuttal with a conciliatory tip of the hat to the correspondent who raised your ire, showing that this is a polite disagreement between gentlemen, and not a verbal 9-11 inspiring an ill-conceived war. Make the attempt to disarm your opponent with a display of fairness.

There is no crime in restating your case in rational terms or criticising in rational terms, but we should restrain the impulse to rebutt by attacking the critic. It brings nothing but a moderator's forced conclusion to a debate that could have been made interesting instead of angry. I think we may broadly agree that the most interesting threads inspire passionate responses. Wouldn't it be great if those threads could run their courses without turning into flame wars!
sasq

[Peter v]

Maybe a bit off center to the post, but ...

I hope we all remember that the verb criticize means to make judgements as to merits and faults. In a topic like fashion, most all crticism is subjective. We should look for the merit in each other's choices whenever possible, but we shouldn't bash those who point out faults, or who simply say "it isn't to my taste." If we want to remain a vital sounding board, we should apply criticism politely and reasonably and challenge it politely and rationally. At times we all get defensive when we think we're under personal attack. I think the best tack in that case is to begin your rebuttal with "I presume you didn't intend those comments personally, but I feel that you misread...misunderstood..." etc. In other words, begin your rebuttal with a conciliatory tip of the hat to the correspondent who raised your ire, showing that this is a polite disagreement between gentlemen, and not a verbal 9-11 inspiring an ill-conceived war. Make the attempt to disarm your opponent with a display of fairness.

There is no crime in restating your case in rational terms or criticising in rational terms, but we should restrain the impulse to rebutt by attacking the critic. It brings nothing but a moderator's forced conclusion to a debate that could have been made interesting instead of angry. I think we may broadly agree that the most interesting threads inspire passionate responses. Wouldn't it be great if those threads could run their courses without turning into flame wars!
sasq

I am o happy with such a well balanced reply, also from other members, in varying topics. ( Yes, please forgive me, as sometimes I just can't find the right words, as after living in the Netherlands for much too long, I am sometimes left looking for even the most simple words. ) It seems to me that despite a momentary mini tsunami of confusion and misunderstandings, the cafe is working OK. Stimulating members to think and rethink various issues, and with the result that we are continuously discussing skirt related issues and thereby evaluating and forming the very core of skirt wearing.
Very actual is discussing what certain well known descriptions mean to US. That means that WE the skirt wearing community are busy with looking for new ways to describe certain ways of dressing, and giving actual true up to date meaning to words that before had in the eyes of the general public a totally other meaning. It is neccessary to look at that issue in detail, if we are to not only BE in skirts, but to talk and write about Men in skirts in such a way that people understand it in a positive way. We have changed the rules, men didn't wear skirts, now they do. That means a change in descriptions and thinking. If we don't work on that, who will?