skirtcafe.org

I buy both my skirts and dresses off of the "women's peg" and neither I nor the people who admire my looks feel I look like a woman.

I most certainly don't appreciate your alleging that I do.

Don't take my word for it, take a look at my postings under Personal Stories, Freestyle Fashions and, oh yes, Pics and Looks.

As regards boxes, computerisation has made the situation worse. How many times have you filled in a form designed to be read by a computer only to find that your answer just won't fit into any of the boxes? And it's generally a case where there is no "other" option and it's corresponding text box. That's how I feel about myself, and I suspect most of you, that there just isn't a relevant box and accompanying text box for explanation. I did think of a T-shirt with on the front "It's comfortable, cool ...." and on the rear ".... and MOH wears the trousers!"

Sinned wrote:As regards boxes, … (you) … find that your answer just won't fit into any of the boxes? ... there is no "other" option and it's corresponding text box. That's how I feel about myself, and I suspect most of you, that there just isn't a relevant box and accompanying text box for explanation.

This is why I keep suggesting y'all read up on the current thinking about gender and get over your terror at the word "Queer" and the rest of the alphabet soup of gender identity.

A box that doesn't fit is constraining and loathsome to the max. One that does fit … well, it's like a great, great-fitting outfit: reaffirming, uplifting, flattering and a great source of confidence and joy!

I did think of a T-shirt with on the front "It's comfortable, cool ...." and on the rear ".... and MOH wears the trousers!"

LOL!

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:A box that doesn't fit is constraining and loathsome to the max.

I cannot agree more!

One that does fit … well, it's like a great, great-fitting outfit: reaffirming, uplifting, flattering and a great source of confidence and joy!

Sadly, the LGBTQCUWTF box isn't correct either, any more than the "cisgendered male" box is or the "conventional parody of male" box is.

I'm after an old-school "male" box that brings the latitude of expression that used to be ours but has since been pulled out from under us. I'm not trying to "restore male privilege" (whatever that may be, or was), I'm talking about fathers being allowed to be fathers and to not get accused for coddling their children in public without proper papers; I'm talking about men being able to be empathetic to those around them without getting harassed, laughed at, or worse; I'm talking about men being able to express a wide range of emotions instead of only rage and hate. I'm hoping for a point where men are allowed to properly enjoy the tender things in life and be able to communicate that joy -- the wonders of a symphony, the joy of birdsong early in the morning, proper appreciation for things of beauty. Those were once ours, but seemingly no more -- or at least we're not allowed to express them, especially publicly.

The fastest and easiest way to dehumanise someone is to deny them the ability to feel. We're most of the way to that point now. So, in that particular case, I do want to "turn the clock back". Lumping us into an ill-fitting box does no-one any favours.

Sadly, the LGBTQCUWTF box isn't correct either

When the "Q" designation is a catchall for everyone who doesn't fit in either the current definitions of the gender binary nor into the categories of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual how could it not fit? Because it's a catchall that is defined by what it isn't, everyone who doesn't fit into one of the before-mentioned six boxes has to fit there. By definition. That includes you and I Carl. I've tried to explain this before, what haven't I made clear?

I'm talking about men being able to express a wide range of emotions instead of only rage and hate. I'm hoping for a point where men are allowed to properly enjoy the tender things in life and be able to communicate that joy -- the wonders of a symphony, the joy of birdsong early in the morning, proper appreciation for things of beauty. Those were once ours,

Just when do you suppose that was? Carl, I'm 10 years older than you and I don't remember these things ever having been more the case than they are today!

I'm talking about fathers being allowed to be fathers and to not get accused for coddling their children in public without proper papers; I'm talking about men being able to be empathetic to those around them without getting harassed, laughed at, or worse;

Where in this world do you suppose those things go on?

I'll grant you that if not only this country but the whole developed world had more men acting just the way you're describing, the world would be a much better place. But I sure don't see or hear or even hear about men being mocked for acting that way. If that's the kind of thing you hear about at your "local," I suggest you change venues.

The fastest and easiest way to dehumanise someone is to deny them the ability to feel.

I couldn't agree with you more on that point.

But again, while that may be what goes on in a Trump rally or a Neo-Nazi parade (I postulate that only as a conjecture because I haven't been to either.), but not anywhere else I can think of.

Maybe you need to spend more time with those supposedly icky, irresponsible, over-indulged Millennials. If you do, I think you'll come away feeling a whole lot better about the state of humanity.

Carl, I know that my location is different but I don't see any negativity in my locale when I go out in a skirt. I try and openly exhibit most of the items you say that we, as men, have lost and am not conscious of being ridiculed for it. BTW Dave I think that Carl is talking about times before and beyond our lifetimes. I came from a very working class heavy steel background and men had to be strong and tough to stand the hot environments that go with steel making. Work hard, drink hard, play hard was the mantra. Fights outside the pub under the influence of drink common. But the next day best of friends again! I once tried cleaning out a huge crucible with a jackhammer to remove the slag and was knackered after just half and hour so not for me. And I was about 18 or 19 then. Maybe I was at the cusp of a societal change and led a sheltered life but aesthetics seemed to be part of my life. Anyway forgive the slight digression and what were we talking about?

Sinned wrote:Carl, I know that my location is different but I don't see any negativity in my locale when I go out in a skirt. I try and openly exhibit most of the items you say that we, as men, have lost and am not conscious of being ridiculed for it.

I'm not ridiculed in any way for it, and if that was perceived as being part of my message then I'm somehow sending an errant signal. It's quite the contrary, actually, as I receive a rather large bit of praise and acceptance in public -- partially for having the stones to be bit different and partially because others think I actually look good.

What I'm railing about is that men who think differently and dress to meet their own tastes and, yes, whims, do not need to be dropped into the "sexually deviant" (there, I've gone and said it) bucket which is what Dave is harping on. He may belong in that bucket -- I don't know, he's never allowed himself to be nailed down (although I have pigeon-holed him in the alphabet-soup (a collection of tiny little boxes), whether correctly or not is actually unimportant) -- but the average guy is going to shy away from that branding quicker than he would from grabbing the business-end of a soldering-iron, and he's certainly not likely to take well to the school-yard bully calling names.

BTW Dave I think that Carl is talking about times before and beyond our lifetimes.

I'm actually thinking back in terms of my grandfather's generation. Sure, there was a hard edge there, but there was vastly more than the parody of masculinity that we tend to see now. His generation was capable of being tough as nails when necessary, but kind words and empathy also played a large role as well. The range of expression was much broader than today's. So, this is within living memory for me, but it's a long way back.

dropped into the "sexually deviant" (there, I've gone and said it) bucket which is what Dave is harping on. He may belong in that bucket -- I don't know, he's never allowed himself to be nailed down

A non-binary gender identity is NOT a sexual deviance. In my experience only someone with the social awareness and open-mindedness of a Donald Trump would believe such a thing.

On the off chance that it matters to you, I'm more than sick and tired of your cheap, snide personal attacks. I have been quite clear about my gender identity and, for that matter, my sexual orientation as well. But since you clearly haven't been paying attention let me spell it all out again. I am a heterosexual, gender-fluid/gender nonconforming male. Just so you don't miss it or forget it again, I'll repeat what I said: I am a heterosexual, gender fluid/gender nonconforming male.

Got it?!!! Please don't "forget" or "misunderstand" it again.

The reason I keep "harping" on this topic is that I see a lot of homophobia and denial on these pages and I am of the firm belief that those feelings are counterproductive to ourselves individually and as a group.

If one of you moderators decide to remove or edit my post, or come down on me for what I said or how I said it, you better do likewise to Carl. I don't know what "pigeon-hole" he's assigned me to, but I doubt it bears any resemblance to reality and I'm quite sure it's not complimentary. If he's going to be allowed to defame members of the Cafe, his targets should be allowed to respond.

The rest of this post is addressed to the rest of the visitors to this forum.

To the extent that you feel either society or your locality's legal system needs to be more accepting or supportive, it's going to take numbers to make that happen and the fact of the matter is that the Pride movement has demonstrated they have the numbers to make themselves heard and to change things. Consequently, from a purely pragmatic perspective it would make sense to ally yourself with that community. Doing so does not necessarily say ANYTHING about your sexual orientation because only the first 3 letters (LGB) refer to sexual orientation. The source of so many people's amusement or bemusement with that movement is HOW MANY letters show up in what I myself refer to as that alphabet soup. So most of those initials refer to personality characteristics. Similarly, a different triad (LGT) refer to one's sex (Which kind of critter you think you are.). The rest of it refers to gender, which describes your mix of personality traits. Boil their message down and it amounts to this: Everyone has the right to honestly and openly be who they genuinely are without being harassed or discriminated against for it.

For me, publicly and proudly wearing skirts, dresses and other womenswear (in the technical sense of the word) has come from and has reinforced a coming to terms and acceptance of who I genuinely am. Clearly, I'm not like most American men because I don't drive a pickup truck (For decades the best-selling car in America has been a truck, the Ford F-150 pickup.) and I wear dresses more than pants. I attribute that difference to my personality having a different blend of masculine and feminine traits then most men. Or at least a blend with more feminine traits than they'll own up to.

That doesn't make me less than anyone else nor more than, just different. Or as the joke goes, "I'm special … just like everyone else."

Accepting all of that makes it a whole lot easier for me to get up in the morning and get dressed as I please. It also gives some meaning to my dressing the way I do. Going out in public dressed as I do makes me a living, breathing billboard that says, "I am living as my genuine self. If I can, so can you. Whatever closet you're hiding in, c'mon out; the light and the air is so much better out here than it has to be in there!"

But, accepting yourself for who you really are is a very helpful element if you intend to casually wear a dress or even a skirt in public.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:A non-binary gender identity is NOT a sexual deviance. In my experience only someone with the social awareness and open-mindedness of a Donald Trump would believe such a thing.

I know that, but your average individual likely doesn't, or hasn't thought about it.

I also note that you don't like being mis-classified. I don't either. Now you know how it feels, and also that it shouldn't happen. The unfortunate fact is that it does happen even if we may be unaware of it, and that can have ramifications in the real world -- and guys are sensitive to that. The point should be to decouple style from gender not to automatically classify every guy who wears a skirt as LGBT.

[... A]ccepting yourself for who you really are is a very helpful element if you intend to casually wear a dress or even a skirt in public.

I could not agree more.

Well...I went out in my black cable-knit dress today. Had a sweater and a jacket on as it was just above freezing. Black walking shoes and black tights on the legs.

Went to Lane Bryant looking for some long-sleeve turtle-neck tshirts that I like to wear under polo shirts for a splash of color at the neck and wrists, and some other items. Didn't find too much, none of the turtleneck t's in stock were my size, a jacket I kind of liked was also not in the right size and one style of skirt, winter-weight and midi. Oh well, I cruise the shops now and then and sometimes find something.

Went to Five Guys for a burger and fries. Then headed home and stopped at the grocery near Uof and caught a few guys taking sour double-takes and even a couple of ladies making sure they saw what they saw. Usually don't catch "looks" around UofL, but usually I'd be wearing a knee-length black skirt with no patterns. The dress looks a bit like this [img][/img], although black.

Guess I'll have to get some more dresses and wear them over there until it's 'normal.'

I may wear a dress around the house, but NOT in public.
The ones I think would work, once I've put them on, end
up being to short. Then, if I have to bend over, the breeze
is far to great. (Also keeps the 'show' to a minimum. )
(My wife doesn't like the 'show in public' either.)

This is a major reason, IMHO, why men won't wear dresses.
Plus, they're not practical when doing many 'manual labor' jobs.

Just my $0.02 worth

Uncle Al

crfriend wrote:

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:A non-binary gender identity is NOT a sexual deviance. In my experience only someone with the social awareness and open-mindedness of a Donald Trump would believe such a thing.

I know that, but your average individual likely doesn't, or hasn't thought about it.

The point should be to decouple style from gender not to automatically classify every guy who wears a skirt as LGBT.

PDXFashionPioneer wrote:[... A]ccepting yourself for who you really are is a very helpful element if you intend to casually wear a dress or even a skirt in public.

I could not agree more.

Now I am REALLY confused. Just what exactly are you getting at? And just what do you think I have been getting at?

If you think I have been saying that all of us are Gay or Bi and just won't admit it, you're wrong. I thought I had been quite clear that it's a matter of so-called masculine vs. so-called feminine personality traits and that gender is a matter of personality that is very clearly decoupled from sex or sexual orientation. If you had read my posts carefully, you would know that.

As to how I feel about your very unclear innuendo, what I do not appreciate is 1) your trying to slander me and 2) your using people's non-binary nature as a de facto source of disrepute.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:
A non-binary gender identity is NOT a sexual deviance. In my experience only someone with the social awareness and open-mindedness of a Donald Trump would believe such a thing.

I know that, but your average individual likely doesn't, or hasn't thought about it.

In fact, as best as I can tell, the average individual does know and act on that difference. Either you need to get around more or take a chip off of your shoulder.

Carl, I get the distinct impression that your biggest problem with me is that you can't believe that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you might actually know what they're talking about and therefore know something you don't.

Uncle Al wrote:I may wear a dress around the house, but NOT in public.
The ones I think would work, once I've put them on, end
up being to(o) short. Then, if I have to bend over, the breeze
is far to(o) great. (Also keeps the 'show' to a minimum. )
(My wife doesn't like the 'show in public' either.)

This is a major reason, IMHO, why men won't wear dresses.

Uncle Al

I thought anyone over the age of 10 who considered wearing a skirt or a dress with a hem that didn't cover their calves realized you don't bend over while wearing such a garment. That if you need to get down lower while so dressed that you bend at your knees while keeping them together!

As to how exposed you might be, if it's a dress or a skirt of that length, it's all the same difference.

Plus, they're not practical when doing many 'manual labor' jobs.

Dresses are as practical for that purpose as skirts. It all comes down to how willing you are to beat them up and how much your modesty is worth in those situations. The Utilikilt was developed by a guy who wanted something cooler (as in less warm) than shorts to wear while working on his motorcycle.

Altogether, I don't feel your thought process holds up.

Uncle Al wrote:I may wear a dress around the house, but NOT in public. The ones I think would work, once I've put them on, end up being to short. Then, if I have to bend over, the breeze is far to great.

There is a bit of a dynamics problem regarding dresses, and that's mainly down to the two-pronged issue that (1) men aren't used to having a garment supported by the upper body and (2) men tend to pick things up by bending over (which is a bad way to do things because it dramatically increases the potential for a lower-back injury). The latter can be mitigated by crouching down and using the legs as the primary weight-bearing body-component instead of the very vulnerable lumbar region of the spine, and the former can be somewhat mitigated by going a bit longer than one would for a skirt so that when one reaches upwards the dress doesn't ride up as the shoulders rise.

This is a major reason, IMHO, why men won't wear dresses. Plus, they're not practical when doing many 'manual labor' jobs.

They're certainly major reasons. On the "practical" front, that might be down more to the actual style of dress involved. I've got a shirt-dress and a faux-wrap dress, and I can do anything in those I would in a regular midi-skirt without risk of exposure -- with the shirt-dress being somewhat better in that regard. The biggest downside is that they were both comparatively expensive compared to a shirt/skirt combination (if something's going to be messy I can always doff the expensive waistcoat).

In short, I don't think that the obstacle is impossible to overcome, it'll just take some work to climb the hill and a lot of experimentation along the way. Many may find it too much work, and in that case there are always skirts.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Altogether, I don't feel your thought process holds up.

I'ld say YOUR thought process doesn't hold up. You seem to forget that
women 'won' the right to wear pants/trousers during WW 2 because THEY
were in the factories, running the machines that built aircraft parts.

If they wore a dress, the material would get caught in the machinery, and
pulling them into the machine. Trousers didn't get caught by the moving parts.

Safety was the main concern here. The women/wives of military men, were
the ones supporting their husbands in the military by going into the factories.
They replaced the men who went off to war.

Uncle Al


PS- my knees won't let me 'crouch' down. I can only bend from the waist.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Now I am REALLY confused. Just what exactly are you getting at? And just what do you think I have been getting at?

You've been labelling everyone who dares to put both legs down one pipe as LGBT&c and have been all along. It needless, and it's offensive to a lot of men. I decided to put you in a little box you didn't like and you went off like a bomb because you were offended. Good, you're capable of being offended. Now contemplate the offence you've been continually pushing with the LGTB&c label. Sure, some guys fit the box -- that's nature in action. However, it's not the majority (or perhaps it is in your neighbourhood, but that's not going to play in Peoria).

If you think I have been saying that all of us are Gay or Bi and just won't admit it, you're wrong. I thought I had been quite clear that it's a matter of so-called masculine vs. so-called feminine personality traits and that gender is a matter of personality that is very clearly decoupled from sex or sexual orientation. If you had read my posts carefully, you would know that.

I think your thinking is fundamentally flawed by the definitions you're using. It looks like you're using the modern "male box" which is the "macho box" not the "generally masculine box" that the overwhelming portion of men fall into.

As to how I feel about your very unclear innuendo, what I do not appreciate is 1) your trying to slander me and 2) your using people's non-binary nature as a de facto source of disrepute.

That had nothing whatsoever to do with slander and everything to do with making the point by way of example -- and you responded perfectly to that. To your second notion, I know full well that the continuum is non-binary; in fact the fully-binary ones are the statistical deviants and tend to be very mentally damaged.

As far as not understanding my thrust in this matter, what could possibly be unclear about:

The point should be to decouple style from gender not to automatically classify every guy who wears a skirt as LGBT.