skirtcafe.org

skirtingtheissue wrote:
To use the earring analogy… remember seeing a man with two earrings for the first time? It was decidedly unusual, and even notable. That was many years ago for me. Now it's not that unusual — seen in only a small minority of men for sure, but becoming mainstream. That's how skirting WILL eventually evolve… becoming "not that unusual". The more we wear skirts, the faster that day will come.

i've had 2 earings in each ear (4 in total) for over 30 years, but the norm for most men does seem to be just the 1 earing

Reaper_Man wrote:

skirtingtheissue wrote:
To use the earring analogy… remember seeing a man with two earrings for the first time? It was decidedly unusual, and even notable. That was many years ago for me. Now it's not that unusual — seen in only a small minority of men for sure, but becoming mainstream. That's how skirting WILL eventually evolve… becoming "not that unusual". The more we wear skirts, the faster that day will come.

i've had 2 earings in each ear (4 in total) for over 30 years, but the norm for most men does seem to be just the 1 earing

I have never understood the concept of wearing only one earring since earrings are sold in pairs. It looks like the person could not afford two earrings and just appears unbalanced. Does anyone know where the concept of one earring originated?

The single earring for a man is an old tradition among seafarers.
If you were "washed up" on a foreign shore, the gold hoop would cover the cost of a good "Christian" burial.
In some of the Scottish "fisher" communities, a boy's ear would be pierced at birth for just this purpose.
Steve.

About thirty years ago I was living with a girlfriend and after a bit to drink and smoke we decided she would pierce my ear, which she did with a sewing needle after numbing the lobe with a couple ice cubes. In that era, having an ear on one side pierced meant you were straight, and on the other side meant gay. Well, after the deed was done, we laughingly realized that neither of us actually knew which ear meant which orientation, so she ended up piercing them both that night. I am still not sure which meant which. Regardless, I kept both pierced for a while, but after we parted ways a year or two later, I lost interest in ornamentation and let the holes grow closed again, which they remain today.

dillon wrote:. . . In that era, having an ear on one side pierced meant you were straight, and on the other side meant gay. Well, after the deed was done, we laughingly realized that neither of us actually knew which ear meant which orientation, so she ended up piercing them both that night. I am still not sure which meant which.

I had both ears pierced seven years ago shortly after turning 55. I had taken a week off that summer and when I chased out of the woods by mosquitoes, I was at home with time on my hands. So I went and had my ears pierced, something I had been thinking about for some time. I got a few looks and questions when I went back to work but only for a day. When someone in the break room asked me why I had both pierced, I joking said that when the time came I panicked and couldn't remember which ear meant what, so I did both.

I have an e-mail friend who lives in the far reaches of western North Carolina has one ear pierced because he doesn't think the natives could deal with two. He told me the rule - Left is right and right is wrong (gay).

skirted_in_SF wrote:...He told me the rule - Left is right and right is wrong (gay).

I heard that too, and started out with two on the left, simply because they came in pairs.

Later, after learning that the connotation only applied to all earrings on the right, I got two on the right to match both sides. Then I got one more on each side for a total of six.

Then I had trouble with keloids on the first two right-side piercings, needed surgery to correct that, and now only have one on that side.

I often think about getting the two on the right put back in, which would be OK now, but it's tough while being on blood thinners.

I've heard the thing about pirates too, except that the reason was to carry wealth in a way that was hard to lose on a crowded and criminally-inclined ship.

In Greek mythology the newly dead had to pay Charon (the boatman) to ferry their soul over the river Styx into afterlife. A sailor washed overboard would not be buried with a coin in his mouth or over his eyes, but could pay with a gold earring.

I wear two in my left ear. I was a sailor in the 1970s and also use one of the earrings symbolically for spiritual purposes.

Taj wrote:In Greek mythology the newly dead had to pay Charon (the boatman) to ferry their soul over the river Styx into afterlife.

As long as I die when I'm wearing my diamonds, I'll be set.

Caultron wrote:

TheSkirtedMan wrote:...However, as an interesting exercise, the next time someone comments on your skirt, try tell ingthem, "Yeah, they're great. You should try one," and see what happens.if nothing else, it puts them on the defensive.

When I get any direct comment on my skirt wearing it is always positive and complimentary and during discussion the reasons why I wear them come out. The men always say that they would never try it. Any negative reactions are always done from a distance so I leave alone and do not provoke. They are themselves not provoking me by having an entitled view but not engaging.

I have had a few wolf whistles, always from men. The last time I turned, bowed (did not curtsy) and shouted back "thank you". Turned and carried on my path.

When out and about I do not try to convert directly. Yes if discussions on skirt wearing start. My aim is persuasion indirectly by letting others see that men can do it and as 'Caultron' says by seeing more men do it.

STEVIE wrote:In wearing a skirt, how do you see yourself as advancing the cause for fashion freedom for men?

That's not something I do consciously. Miss out "how" from the question and my answer to "do you see ..." Is yes and no.

I don't wear a skirt to advance a cause; I do it because I like to wear skirts. If I was trying to advance the cause, I would probably choose more conservative styles to go out in. Kilts, traditional or modern would be the order of the day. It's been said here before that to get skirts to be seen as menswear we have to go slowly, get kilts into the mainstream, then move on to plain denim skirts, and so on. But even step one would take decades unless some obliging celeb decided to give all his trousers to charity. No doubt some men do wish to go down that road, and I wish them every success. But life's too short for that!

So I wear what I want, and maybe I advance the cause anyway. It would be nice if I did. Today's outfit of navy blue sweater, blue denim knee-length skirt and purple tights did not see the great outdoors. A friend of one of my sons came round, and he did give me a rather odd look as I answered the door, though I think he'd seen me skirted before. So no step forward today. Had I gone out thus attired, would I have turned heads, or changed minds? Or are purple tights just the mark of the village weirdo? Frankly my dears ...

Overall I think I must advance the cause. Lots of people will have seen me skirted in the street or on a train, and sometimes I will have been wearing something plain and cause-advancing. Some people will have thought "why not?" or even, "OMG, that's two I've seen", and though I very much doubt any of them gave nipped straight off to M&S to copy my style, it all adds to the total sightings of skirted men. One step nearer to general acceptance.

skirtyscot wrote:...So I wear what I want, and maybe I advance the cause anyway. It would be nice if I did...

Exactly.

Funnily enough, apart from wearing black trousers to work, when I get home I will be wearing dark purple tights and a just above the knee denim skirt, akrtysct! The other half of the time ( even days ) I will be wearing denim jeans.

You're right on trend, Dennis!