skirtcafe.org

Typical, for an article about men in skirts, would be men wearing skirts of various styles, but otherwise wearing or doing nothing unusual. If you want to write an article about 'freestyle', go ahead. You might be surprised at what I wear around my own home - but I'm not trying to force that into the article either.

The article must stand on its own merits, to be taken seriously. If you obscure the main theme with other issues, it would get clouded and open to silly tangential debates. The article has a particular focus, and it should be kept within the constraints of that theme.

If you think that men wearing tights is as 'normal' as a man with a moustache, you are off your rocker. It might be normal to you, but in the big wide world it isn't. It represents a separate issue.

Steve 1 wrote:Typical, for an article about men in skirts, would be men wearing skirts of various styles, but otherwise wearing or doing nothing unusual. .....
If you think that men wearing tights is as 'normal' as a man with a moustache, you are off your rocker. It might be normal to you, but in the big wide world it isn't. It represents a separate issue.

Hang on a minute, though, Steve1 - I don't believe that it is a separate issue.....

I fully accept that your wiki article is about men in skirts - BUT... even if we are talking about 'mainstream' MIS here, you cannot separate the skirt wearing from other accessories, such as tops, shoes, and yes - legwear. To just show images bare-chested, bare-legged, bare-footed men wearing nothing else but a skirt would be OK for a single statement fashion shot maybe, but it would not be representative of normal everyday MIS wear.

If you wear a skirt, unless it comes completely down to the ground, you have to consider legwear too, be it thick wooly football socks, thin ankle socks, plain tights, patterned tights, knee-highs, thigh-highs, etc, etc, in all their diverse patterns, colours and styles. It is impractical in temperate and cool climates to be bare-legged always throughout the year, therefore some legwear is neccesary, and its visibility comes as part of the skirtwear.

For those of us who wear knee-length or shorter skirts, traditional mens' socks, designed for wearing under trousers, can sometimes look OK, but equally can also look completely wrong. As an alternative, legwear such tights can work very well indeed and look very good on men. If the outfit is well put together, a photo of a man wearing a smart, well-chosen combination of skirt and tights will simply look OK, and the focus will still be on the skirt and not the tights.

On the other hand, a poorly assembled combination of skirt with inappropriate 'ordinary' mens' socks and shoes, can look just awful; incomplete and awkward, and that would give an equally bad impression of MIS.

Legwear does not have to mean 'feminine' (Oh you poor babies - the dreaded 'f' word!). We should be quite capable of choosing suitable items to avoid this - there is plenty of stuff out there in the shops.

So - to conclude: when we wear skirts, we HAVE to be much more aware of the overall balance and look of the whole outfit, and legwear has a significant part to play in this. Therefore any images we display of MIS have to reflect this too.

Steve D
-----------
A post-scriptum question for Steve1:
In the photos of ChristopherJ wearing diamond-pattered tights with a denim mini-skirt, are you objecting to the tights, the pattern of the tights, or the skirt? If Christopher was wearing a calf-ankle length skirt with the same patterned tights, less of his legs would be visible and one might not even notice the tights at all, or else think the tights would be socks. So is it the shortness of mini-skirt that you are really objecting to?

I canot see what the fuss is about. Unless we happen to be in the tropics, some form of legwear is essential. I only go about with completely bare legs with sandals in the height of the summer. We have to dress for the climate conditions at the time. Yesterday I wore knee length black socks with wellington boots. But I woud not suggest that that I was making a fashion statement - It was absolutely pouring down and the was water everywhere. I thought the whole point of skirt wearing - was down to freedom of choice. look around at what women wear under their skirts. On a given day you will find some wearing boots, some wearing plain tights, some wearing patterned tights, some wearing stockings, some in long socks, some in short socks, some with bare legs and others wearing combinations of the above. No one says which is right and which is wrong.

Nick

Steve D - I am objecting to the presence of tights.

{skirt+tights} taken together is an additional cultural idea borrowed from women's fashion, and is one of many extensions to {skirt} alone which can be made. If we go down that road we might end up with stockings, high heels, handbags, underwear, etc - all of which may also be considered as accessories or extensions to the wearing of a skirt.

I don't want anyone freeloading on the article to push their own agenda about other items of clothing. The article is about skirts, and nothing else. I have defined it and intended it that way from the outset, and it is non-negotiable.

I envisage, eventually, a number of related articles - tights for men, bras, heels, etc, each presented in a standalone, practical way. And other articles which combine these things, eg 'freestyle' or 'fashion freedom'.

If anyone wants to push their own agenda for accessories or extensions or the theme, they are welcome to write those other articles. The article I've written is not called 'freestyle', or 'skirts and acessories', or 'aesthetics borrowed from women'. It is about *skirts*.

Nick - what you describe would come under an article called 'fashion freedom', as it inolves borrowing a number of items of clothing from women's fashion. See what I've written above.

I'm not entirely happy about any discussion of 'kilts' in the article either. But if the kilt-wearers concede that kilts are a type of skirt, then maybe it is ok. The last I heard, most kilt-wearers got on their hobby horse every time a kilt was called a skirt. So all references to 'kilt' should probably be taken out aswell; but it is debatable.

The only other type of clothing that could be mentioned in the article is dresses. A dress is a garment which contains 2 parts: a bodice and a skirt, so it is a little tangential. Since wikipedia already combines the women's form into an article entitled "Skirt or dress", we should probably do the same, which is why I allowed Mark's clothes. But again, it is debatable.

Anything else is absolutely out of the question. You need to write your own articles for those things.

Here you go -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantyhose_for_men

It was begun in October last year.

Steve 1 wrote:Steve D - I am objecting to the presence of tights.

{skirt+tights} taken together is an additional cultural idea borrowed from women's fashion, and is one of many extensions to {skirt} alone which can be made. If we go down that road we might end up with stockings, high heels, handbags, underwear, etc - all of which may also be considered as accessories or extensions to the wearing of a skirt.

I don't want anyone freeloading on the article to push their own agenda about other items of clothing. The article is about skirts, and nothing else. I have defined it and intended it that way from the outset, and it is non-negotiable......

As I said in my previous post, I understand and accept that your article is about skirts. That's fine. I'm not trying to push any other agenda here, certainly not my own. All I am trying point out is that images of men in skirts *inevitably* must show either bare legs, or some sort of legwear. You cannot get away from that. And people who use this wiki article to become better informed about MIS are surely going to ask the question 'what do men wear on their legs when wearing a skirt?' Here's an opportunity to indicate an answer to that question, almost incidentally as it were.

The article is about skirts, and nothing else. I have defined it and intended it that way from the outset, and it is non-negotiable......

Isn't that rather contrary to the principles of Wikipedia?

Steve -

Do men wear stockings and legwarmers aswell?

Do they wear knee-highs or thigh boots?

Where will they put their stuff, if the skirt doesn't have big enough pockets (as skirts often don't) - so why not handbags?

Why don't they also wear high heels to complement the look?

If they wear skirts, why not slinky dresses?

All of these questions, and more, can be answered in a separate article, which can be referenced from the one I am writing. I realise you want to provide answers to them. But none of those things is a foregone conclusion to wearing a skirt; if it was, men would be wearing tights or thigh-high leather boots with shorts. But they don't; therefore, it is purely optional.

If you include tights in this article, you also have to answer the same question in an article about men wearing shorts; and you also have to answer all of the above questions. The answer is: they may be strongly linked in your mind, but to other people they are separate things which can taken separately and described separately.

This is not a way of *persuading* anyone of anything. It is a simple description of the subject, within the limits of that subject. If people want more answers about reated thigs, they can follow links.

I can see where Steve 1 is coming from - "Keep it simple", if I'm not mistaken!

I have only slight reservations with a couple of points raised. I, too, am well aware there are (still!) a few ('Trad') Kilt-wearers who continue to deny the plain fact that a Kilt is, indeed, a (form of) skirt! However, would not the modern (American) 'kilts' be a useful illustration, in that it would confirm that Kilts, per se, are moving with the times?

The second point is the 'dress' issue. Regardless of whether women group dresses/skirts together, there have been many posts over the years where someone has reported that some (usually!) drunk/yobbo/teen has yelled, "He's wearing a dress!" - whether it's a skirt or not. At this moment in time, dresses still carry far more 'baggage' than skirts/kilts. On that basis, I would hope that dresses, too, could be consigned ('hidden', if you like) to any 'links' section.................

merlin wrote:I can see where Steve 1 is coming from - "Keep it simple", if I'm not mistaken!

I have only slight reservations with a couple of points raised. I, too, am well aware there are (still!) a few ('Trad') Kilt-wearers who continue to deny the plain fact that a Kilt is, indeed, a (form of) skirt! However, would not the modern (American) 'kilts' be a useful illustration, in that it would confirm that Kilts, per se, are moving with the times?

The second point is the 'dress' issue. Regardless of whether women group dresses/skirts together, there have been many posts over the years where someone has reported that some (usually!) drunk/yobbo/teen has yelled, "He's wearing a dress!" - whether it's a skirt or not. At this moment in time, dresses still carry far more 'baggage' than skirts/kilts. On that basis, I would hope that dresses, too, could be consigned ('hidden', if you like) to any 'links' section.................

Good call! modern none trad. kilts, utilikilts etc. are good examples of the evolution of male skirts and show how some of the divisions are blurring, kilt or skirt? both of course!

As for dresses, do they have to have feminine lines? If somebody designed one which suited the male form and looked good then why could it not be shown? O.K. I don't think there is such a thing apart from a few very expensive german creations, I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand.

Thnak you Merlin for your support.

I'm not sure about the kilts issue. I'm with you on the fact that a kilt is quite plainly a type of skirt. I am inclined to include them on that basis (as I have done, so far), treating it as a minor side issue. If the MIK people want out, they can write their own article and link it from this one.

Keep it simple is indeed what I'm after here. If just one person can cause me to answer so many questions, how much would a whole forum, or a whole internet community cause? Christpher wants tights in there; someone else will want handbags in there; someone else will want heels. I've no problem with any of it, but not for this article. That's not antithetical to the spirit of wikipedia; respect is normaly shown to the original author, provided their concept is a reasonable starting point, while they are taking an active hand in it. Once the author loses interest, it's anyone's.

If we stick to skirts alone, we can find acres of things to write about. There are a few dozen styles, for a start; there is history, laws, the influence of other cultures, etc. There is also the parallel with women's lib and trousers. Al of that is talking just about skirts.

Your request about dresses seems reasonable aswell. We can keep that separate, and that makes life a bit easier again - if no one objects.

We are aiming, remember, for a really good article which no one can dispute, and which will present the MIS concept to people in a simple and readable way.

Clutter is bad.
Zen is good.

Dragging it on and on with disputes is bad.
A simple concept, written really nicely and informatively, is good.

Steve, I'm not disputing or arguing anything now that the pictures are looking v. good, I was just throwing in the odd thought and agreeing with Merlin. Its your page and I appreciate that you want to keep it 'pure', it's in good hands!
Maybe someone else with wiki editing skills could start off an entry for Mens 'alternative fashions', tights, dresses, impractical footwear and anything else which came to mind could feature.
It could be a 'third way' in parallel to MIS, the cross dressy/tranny community and any other groups I have forgotten about, oh, fourth way if kilted groups still want to be seperate from other skirts.

IMPORTANT NOTE: My term 'cross dressy/tranny' is not meant as derogatory or insulting. It's just a simple descriptive erm thing.

The MIS movement is about kilts and skirts. I don't think the article would be true to the movement without kilts. Many of the early MIS started out wearing a kilt or kilt-looking skirt, then moved on to wearing other types of skirts. One can look through the Tom's Cafe archive. Check the photo gallery. Many needed a place to start, myself included; a "safe" way to begin wearing skirts. IMO Utilikilts' designer never claimed it to be a kilt, but rather a man-skirt. Their design allows guys to wear a skirt without worrying about how to sit, or what to wear underneath. Men's skirt fashions have often incorporated the kilt in their designs.

binx

I don't want anyone freeloading on the article to push their own agenda about other items of clothing. The article is about skirts, and nothing else. I have defined it and intended it that way from the outset, and it is non-negotiable......

I certainly wasn't trying to "freeload" on the article or anything like that.

This whole debate was not about changing or adding to the article that you compiled, but about whether or not to include a photo of a man wearing a skirt - with tights.

I already said that in my opinion the skirt/tights "look" is a valid part of current MIS styles - and as such could well be illustrated in the article. To my mind, you are allowing your own prejudices to get in the way of an unbiased summary of MIS.

I'm not willing to argue the matter with you though. You said that it's non-negotiable anyway.

Steve1 - you are still missing, or refusing to acknowledge, the point that I am trying to make, but I'll try to answer your questions anyway....

Steve 1 wrote:Steve -
Do men wear stockings and legwarmers aswell?

Clearly, some do. ChristopherJ is wearing legwarmers in his pictures, and he is is wearing a skirt out in public. It might not be *your* choice, but it *is* his, and therefore one of many perfectly valid looks for MIS.

Do they wear knee-highs or thigh boots?

Probably. I don't know about the thigh boots - that doesn't interest me personally and I don't know why you've grouped these together. But I often wear opaque or semi-opaque knee-highs with my calf- or ankle-length skirts. Out and about in public. They're (the knee-highs) are comfortable, convenient, and look good. They complement the look of the skirt and the whole outfit blends together.

Where will they put their stuff, if the skirt doesn't have big enough pockets (as skirts often don't) - so why not handbags?

I carry a plain black canvas shoulder bag or sometimes a trendy satchel-type bag whether I'm wearing skirts or not. Such bags are commonly to be seen being carried by both men and women, especially the younger ones, whether they are wearing skirts or not, here in Sheffield on a daily basis. You really need to get out more from the depths of mid-Wales.

Why don't they also wear high heels to complement the look?
If they wear skirts, why not slinky dresses?

Heels - no reason why men can't wear them if they want, but there is a much more obvious connotation with cross-dressing here, as I'm sure you are well aware, even though you ask the question. As for me as a MIS, I usually wear black leather ankle-boots with a low heel with my skirts, but I also wear the same boots with jeans. Again, they are comfy and don't look out of place. Just the opposite, in fact. In a more formal setting, such as when playing in concerts with my local orchestra, I will often wear a pair of smart black Mary Janes teamed up with black knee-highs and my 'posh' ankle-length black skirt. It's comfortable and it all looks right.

Slinky dresses - as you will be aware, no reason why men can't wear them, but clearly there's the CD connection again. Slinky dresses are what women might wear to show off their bodies and be sexually alluring to men and so not really what men might want to wear for themselves. Someone else on this thread has commented on the 'Menintime' dresses for men. I think some of them look good, but not really part of mainstream MIS wear yet, though that time might come in the future, I suppose.

....But none of those things is a foregone conclusion to wearing a skirt; if it was, men would be wearing tights or thigh-high leather boots with shorts. But they don't; therefore, it is purely optional.

Now you're being silly. It's optional for women too. Even here in Sheffield, the fashion centre of the universe , I have not seen too many women wearing tights or thigh-high leather boots with shorts. Shorts are usually informal garments for hot weather especially the beach or park, etc., and I can't see much call for tights or thigh-high leather boots in those conditions.

If you include tights in this article, you also have to answer the same question in an article about men wearing shorts; and you also have to answer all of the above questions.

No, you *don't* have answer these questions. To go back to the original dispute - showing a set of pictures of men wearing skirts will also show, quite incidentally, that there are a variety of different styles of MIS, including different ways in which the legs appear. A set of photos of women wearing skirts will inevitably show great variation in the overall look, even if you restricted it to, say, denim skirts. Skirts allow both men and women to be expressive (which doesn't mean outrageous) in the way in which they look and team up their outfit with their other clothing items.

There are NO RULES for MIS (other than perhaps if it looks good, it's OK) but it seems that you are trying to force your own rules, opinions and preferences on the rest of us. If you write an article for Wikipedia, it then takes on a life of its own and you have to accept that other people will have different ideas from you. If you want to put forward your own unalterable point of view, then you should be looking to publish it elsewhere, say on your own website, where you, and only you, can control the content.