skirtcafe.org

jamodu wrote:My experience is that such garments are supplied with either 'shelf support' (an extra elasticated layer), or with 'soft padding'.

I prefer the latter: a good alternative to wearing a padded bra.

Eh? Why would you want one of those?

Sinned wrote:hilaryskirt, can't think of a worse name, mancami just doesn't seem to flow right, and I just don't think it would help with the takeup of the garment with your average Joe. A cami is a cami is a camisole - a sleeveless vest-like garment with low front and back and spaghetti straps. Just as well we aren't all the same.

I agree. What’s wrong with ‘camisole’? I guess I feel that the need to masculinization the name of anything we borrow from women may be construed as insecurity with our choices. If we want to effect masculinity in non-traditional clothing, let’s figure out how to get some designed for the male body.

dillon wrote: agree. What’s wrong with ‘camisole’? I guess I feel that the need to masculinization the name of anything we borrow from women may be construed as insecurity with our choices. If we want to effect masculinity in non-traditional clothing, let’s figure out how to get some designed for the male body.

I bought my first camis from a man's underwear company called Bodyaware. Then I realized that I could order similar products on Amazon for a fraction of the price and overloaded on them in a rainbow of colors.

I see no reason to put "man" in front of camisole. Sounds silly.

skirtyscot wrote:

jamodu wrote:My experience is that such garments are supplied with either 'shelf support' (an extra elasticated layer), or with 'soft padding'.

I prefer the latter: a good alternative to wearing a padded bra.

Eh? Why would you want one of those?

Why? It was in response to JohnH, who had commented on his ‘chest mounds’ (or ‘moobs’, if you will)

jamodu wrote:

skirtyscot wrote:

jamodu wrote:My experience is that such garments are supplied with either 'shelf support' (an extra elasticated layer), or with 'soft padding'.

I prefer the latter: a good alternative to wearing a padded bra.

Eh? Why would you want one of those?

Why? It was in response to JohnH, who had commented on his ‘chest mounds’ (or ‘moobs’, if you will)

Well, I don't need any padding or filler for my chest mounds. They are not "moobs"; they are boobs. I wear 40 DD.

John

dillon wrote:

Sinned wrote:hilaryskirt, can't think of a worse name, mancami just doesn't seem to flow right, and I just don't think it would help with the takeup of the garment with your average Joe. A cami is a cami is a camisole - a sleeveless vest-like garment with low front and back and spaghetti straps. Just as well we aren't all the same.

I agree. What’s wrong with ‘camisole’? I guess I feel that the need to masculinization the name of anything we borrow from women may be construed as insecurity with our choices. If we want to effect masculinity in non-traditional clothing, let’s figure out how to get some designed for the male body.

Nothing wrong with just "camisole" except that "cami" is less typing and fewer syllables. I said "man-cami" in jest, riffing off that same insecurity that leads people to say things like that when they don't know what else to say. It seemed to fit since I was also introducing an adaptation that I think can be helpful, especially for men, since cami straps tend to de-shoulder more without breasts (which most man-boobs can't really stand in for).

Some people who know me still call my skirts kilts and persist in doing so even when I correct them. It's weird.

My latest hero is Billy Porter who said something like "I'm a man in a dress, get used to it" when asked about that choice. (he attended some awards in gowns made for him) This is where getting things designed for the male body begins, I think.

denimini wrote:

Kilted_John wrote:This all reminds me of the inane "Manbun" name for a hair bun, if it's worn by a guy.

It is crazy the words that get invented to bolster a self conscious masculinity. We are gradually getting rid of all the female gender specific words, aviatrix, actress, comedienne, and now inventing new ones for males. I hope manskirt doesn't take a hold. "Is that a manskirt?" "No, it's just a #@(%'n skirt!"
I realise that "mancami" is a bit tongue-in-cheek; what about a manisole as renesm1 mentioned .............. Oh no!, it already exists: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... m=Manisole

Ha ha ha!

John

jamodu wrote:

JohnH wrote:How about calling a bra a "mra" for a man such as myself with prominent chest mounds? Last time I went shopping I didn't find mras in the men's section.

I regularly buy Camisoles. Recently, though, you're more likely to find them listed as 'stringy', 'strappy' or 'spaghetti' vests.

"I would like a satin mra in ivory without lace on it please. And a man-slip in polyester with minimal lace."
Do you know what I can't see what's so wrong about giving a 'man' prefix just to acquire and indicate needing something traditionally seen as ladies understructure clothing but with a twist for the 'man in a skirt' to get comfortable with.

A cami is such a simple garment and a man can wear one, I do often, and we wouldn't put "woman" as a prefix for any garment [0] so why should we pander to male insecurities [1] by adding "man" as a prefix to anything. Seems a bit crass to me. A cami is a tube worn on the upper body, generally plain with a low neckline and back and spaghetti straps. No, leave it out and just call it a cami. I wouldn't put "man" in front of "skirt" either. It's a skirt goddammit!!!!

[0] Pointless as a woman can wear ANY garment and it not be thought odd.
[1] Poor things, don't we feel sorry for them.

Sinned wrote:[... W]e wouldn't put "woman" as a prefix for any garment

That depends. I'm not sure how it works in other regions of the world, but the use of "Womens'" in the US refers to a body-type (a mostly obsolete one [0]) that has curves and softness as opposed to "Juniors'" (which is more slab-sided and flat), and finally "Misses'" (which is juvenile clothing).

The rise of the "Juniors'" look in women's body-types -- especially at the taller and larger end -- has been a boon for guys who get stuff from the distaff side of the aisle whereas the "Womens'" sizes are a lot more problematic for men.

As far as "pandering to male insecurities", just say, "No" and don't do it. All others will do is laugh behind your back (or, if you're lucky, to your face).


[0] Here, the ideal body-type today for women here resembles the shape of a 16-year old boy -- hard, straight, and flat. It's pretty sad, really. Then there are the ones who seem to have given up and ballooned, which is sad, too. And there's little in between.

crfriend wrote: Here, the ideal body-type today for women here resembles the shape of a 16-year old boy -- hard, straight, and flat. It's pretty sad, really. Then there are the ones who seem to have given up and ballooned, which is sad, too. And there's little in between.

And you can blame all of that on the fashion industry and their beanpole fashion models. Most of them look like death warmed over they are so thin. One time when I was in New York City I dropped in to see a fashion photographer that I had written to before the trip, I had been interested in some of this home made equipment and he invited me to come by and see it in person. He was in the middle of a session for one of the high fashion designers. The models in person looked so sick that I wondered if they should have a full medical staff on hand. One of them was about 6' 2 or 3' tall and could not have weighed more that 85 pounds soaking wet.

This is the cause of all of the teenage suicides today since most people do not look this way and they think that this is the only way to look.

Actually over here I have seen advertisements for women's clothes that use plus-sized women and larger bodied women wearing their garments, swimwear and all. Refreshing but for the life of me I can't remember the names of the retailers. Sad, isn't it.