I feel it would be wrong to entirely remove the difference between what have become stable male and female costume detail traits.
When a garment on a man starts to take on the look that was originally designed to alure the red-blooded male, I get a knee-jerk reaction. It might be a floaty flounced hem, lacy addition, or an over-loud material pattern much favoured by older women. This absolutely jarrs with me. I can understand that the movement is towards not making judgement between what is normally worn by a man, and that by a woman, but for the sake of 'vive la difference' stability, and a much greater chance of men in general actually coming around to wearing skirts in a future era of more accepting attitudes, surely going down the anything goes route as a basic forward looking direction is wrong, and would probably put more blokes off than convert them.
I haven't yet found the courage to wear a skirt in public, and don't hesitate to admit this. I consider myself to be a reasonably run of the mill 60+ male (though unfortunately still being unmarried, and time's running out, some might be forgiven for wondering). Therefore I am drawn always towards garments which are obviously masculine without question. This is why I cannot yet go a step further from the kilt, which, to me, is the tried and tested benchmark of male skirtwear.
The problem I see with skirt suits, which many business women wear, is that without some kind of defining difference, there will be a greater accusation directed at men who wear them too, of cross dressing, and no way is your ordinary man in the street going to place himself in that particular line of fire...however attracted he might be to switching to skirted for a change from trousers.
So far, apart from occasional stabs at male skirts from the fashion designers, there has been (I could be wrong) no basic ingredients to denote a male garment as being masculine in image. As an example, mens' trousers invariably have a zip fly, but womens' don't. Pretty obvious stuff, but it spells out the fact that the guy isn't probably wearing a woman's item. Gent's jackets usually have a straight drop each side, whereas a woman's is often pinched in to accentuate the waistline.
If I had a choice of how a male skirted suit would be, it would be along the lines of a one pleat front (which echoes the former trouser format), rather than a flat front - women don't have noticeable bits like men to worry about, so this is purely for aesthetics, with a kilt-like box pleated rear. The pleats fall from a point below that required to have one or two back pockets above. With pleat at front, and those at the back it would be comfortable to sit in, with the front pleat falling neatly between the legs rather than a flat scoop you have to remember to tuck down. Also more comfortable for driving. There would be pockets at each side, as men don't always go for handbags. That for me would be the ideal skirt, in one or two lengths, to go with a jacket in matched material. It also would have a fly front, in the same way as it's easier to get trousers on with the fly unzipped and avoids an elasticated waistband. I think this would also work well with a waistcoat (if required). The pleated back would bridge unsensationally, for me, across the kilt/skirt divide. I think I would feel quite confident in that. And with neat pleats at the back swishing about in the usual kilt-sexy way, should continue to be a hit with the ladies.
Here's a very rough artist's mock up of it, which is intentionally a plain, no nonsense (I think), over the knee design, probably worn with knee length socks...
Just my thoughts and, as always, don't mind if I get shot down. Thoughts are what make the world go round.
) but as we don't touch the toilet it is most hygenic for us. )
will never understand. I said raping, because there are preditors out there who only have one thing in mind, regardless of what the other thinks or wants. 
don't need to be the ideal macho man, manliness, that they think that women are also "hunting ' for to gel laid. Those men are not less men than any other man, but behave restectfully. They therefore don't need to have clothing that ( a personal idea of manliness) presents them as men to copulate with. 
So no real "need" for a sporan. 
. When men wear pants, I am sure that their manlyhood shows, so why should we now that WE are making the rules, go and hide ourselves, being "ashamed" of what we have? Only with some flat fronted skirts, the option may be not to buy it, if there is too much obvious "show". 
