skirtcafe.org

Happykilt,
As far as I'm concerned you have asked the perfect question.
At a very young age, I tried on a skirt, I liked it.
The problem was that "SKIRTS ARE FOR GIRLS".
It took me a very long time to realise that this was a lie.
Steve.

STEVIE wrote:Happykilt,
As far as I'm concerned you have asked the perfect question.
....

Well, my question is; are we making our own definitions of words? Definitions that differ significantly from the "normal" usage of those same words.
Just have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing

If those articles are defining those key-words wrong then some native English-speaker here might correct them. Or better even, someone might write an article about Fashion-freestyle.

happykilt wrote:Well, my question is; are we making our own definitions of words? Definitions that differ significantly from the "normal" usage of those same words.
Just have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing

What we have here is a problem not with the "definition" of the term per se, but rather in how they're used colloquially. Both terms have been in use for around a century, but have only fairly recently received "definitions" in a dictionary sense.

For instance, my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (c) 1971, and which remains my go-to guide for words I'm curious about, does not mention the term "cross-dresser". It goes directly from "cross-cut" to "crosse". Transvestism, however, does have a definition of, "adoption of the dress and often the behavior of the opposite sex".

Given the above, one might think that the pseudo-Latin term came first; however, there is much evidence which indicates otherwise and which points to the pseudo-Latin term being coined directly from "cross-dresser" for inclusion into a scholarly paper where a colloquial term would not have seemed "intellectual enough". I've seen this written up enough in places other than Wikipedia that I agree with the preponderance of evidence.

So, if we take the two terms at face value, one highly probably being directly derived from the other, then the two are entirely the same thing and can apply equally to the sexes. However, in practice, this is never the case. Women adopt male clothing all the time and call it "unisex" (see my thread on "Unixex, let's just stop it); guys who adopt female clothing are labeled as transvestites (or worse) and can be classed as mentally ill. To sum it all up, we need a new term that has none of the connotations that are in colloquial play with either "crossdressing" or "transvestism" (personally, I avoid the latter like the plague as I find it merely a tarted-up version of the former -- why bother) and which has none of the pejorative problems associated with it.

If those articles are defining those key-words wrong then some native English-speaker here might correct them. Or better even, someone might write an article about Fashion-freestyle.

Trying to "correct" Wikipedia on matters is like trying to change the tide. Too, there was a motion a while ago to get the notion of "men in skirts" (or men's skirts) included, and which received positively massive pushback, mostly on the grounds of "Point-Of-View pushing" and the fact that Wikipedia will not accept first-hand research (which actually does much to discredit them, mind, as without first-hand research NO research is possible, period).

My approach in this is to raise high my middle finger at Wikepedia and gently "correct" those around me who misinterpret things. That "correction" comes not so much from words, but actions. I so strongly defy the stereotypical crossdresser notion that comparisons really cannot be made. Therefore, I must be something else. In my experience, most folks are capable of making that jump.

crfriend wrote:Trying to "correct" Wikipedia on matters is like trying to change the tide. Too, there was a motion a while ago to get the notion of "men in skirts" (or men's skirts) included, and which received positively massive pushback, mostly on the grounds of "Point-Of-View pushing" and the fact that Wikipedia will not accept first-hand research.

It seems that Wikipedia has relented a bit on this... See here.

Have fun,


Ian.

How nice and considerate at the very bottom last line of the article "SkirtCafe" appears for External Reference (link).
Well being mentioned at all is some progress !

I am not a 'cross' dresser.

I'm always quite calm when I choose to wear a skirt or dress.

jamodu wrote:I am not a 'cross' dresser.

I'm always quite calm when I choose to wear a skirt or dress.

*rimshot*

Well done!

Being that Easter has now come and passed I did not and have not dressed the cross.

Recent TV series of the Bible note only the Roman soldiers wore skirt like garments.

I don't know what time frame that cross-dressing came into vogue but it certainly was not in Biblical times.

r.m.anderson wrote:Being that Easter has now come and passed I did not and have not dressed the cross.

Recent TV series of the Bible note only the Roman soldiers wore skirt like garments.

I don't know what time frame that cross-dressing came into vogue but it certainly was not in Biblical times.

True, nobody in the Bible ever wore trousers.

But even so, I suspect the women and men of that times dressed differently.

Caultron wrote:But even so, I suspect the women and men of that times dressed differently.

There were subtle differences, but even then only really notable at the most elite levels. Recall that abject subsistence-level poverty was the norm for just about everyone at the time, and most could not afford the time to create -- much less take care of -- fancy garments. What there as for the (unwashed) masses was tough, sturdy, purely functional garb without much embellishment whatsoever.

A miniscule number could "afford" such luxuries, but it was on the same level as the $10,000 suit or a "prestige-brand" monster-truck for the trophy-wife to drive the kids to soccer-practice in -- a status symbol.

crfriend wrote:There were subtle differences, but even then only really notable at the most elite levels. Recall that abject subsistence-level poverty was the norm for just about everyone at the time, and most could not afford the time to create -- much less take care of -- fancy garments. What there as for the (unwashed) masses was tough, sturdy, purely functional garb without much embellishment whatsoever.

A miniscule number could "afford" such luxuries, but it was on the same level as the $10,000 suit or a "prestige-brand" monster-truck for the trophy-wife to drive the kids to soccer-practice in -- a status symbol.

Well, Deuteronomy 22:5 says:

• A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

so there must've been some difference.

BTW, Deuteronomy prohibits a lot of things that people don't worry about any more, like pork and pierced ears and tattoos. But there must have been some difference in clothing because if there wasn't, why have the rule?

WARNING - completely unresearched answer!

Women wore long dresses; men wore shorter ones.

Maybe not so much dresses per sec but robes of a type of design fastened with rope/hemp belts to secure around the waist
and yes the length perhaps the defining feature in the difference between the sexes.

Puzzled for limited subject matter about the sexes not wearing the clothing of the other - that nothing specific is noted
or mentioned further and the History of Clothing 101 does not mention about the Bra but does mention about the
loin cloth vaguely which maybe the clothing that should not worn by which sex ? - men for support although medically
the boys should be thoroughly aired and for women to control vaginal problems ? It is like learning sex 101 from the
beginning with no one producing the/a user manual.
It is like we left the Garden of Eden in a hurry and only fig leafs were the clothing that could be at hand for the journey.

So much for the Good Book and its encyclopedia of unsupported sex facts - miracles yes but facts no !

Since the garden of Eden, whose inmates were happy nudists, represented a lost paradise, I wonder why the angels that, they say, live in god's paradise, are always painted with long robes to cover their nakedness!
Perhaps the artists could not work out what a sexless body would look like.

Martin

I suppose it depends on whether you believe it is indeed the word of God or simply the words of men attributed to God. I find a substantial difference between the greater message of the Bible and all the individual condemnations. At the peril of being called an eisegete, I think we are all in God's image, but perhaps creation is less than black and white in its permutations. I think we were given intellect to understand the world, and I see no sin in using that gift.

Personally I trust what I know and understand more than the many editors of the Scriptures throughout the millennia.