skirtcafe.org

Sorry, can't get the link to work. It keeps 'timing out'.

Uncle Al

Hmm. someone must have erected an extension of the 'Great Firewall of China' around the Independant's site. I've read that the loading forever symptom is one result of trying to find unapproved sites from within the PRC.
I even tried truncating the URL after the .co.uk. Same result.

this link works
http://www.newfashiontoday.com/2010/04/ ... kirts.html

Thanks RichardA:

Now if they would only get rid of the idea of wearing 'bloody' pants underneath the kilts/skirts !

What ever possesses these fashion idiots to subscript to wearing something underneath kilts ?

All right underwear if you must but pants; leggings/tights in summer ?

I can see some protection from the elements in a winter climate but it sure ain't fashionable to
wear a kilt over pants #$%&@ UGH !!!!! Wear the Kilt or the pants but not both !!!!!

rm

r.m.anderson wrote:What ever possesses these fashion idiots to subscript to wearing something underneath kilts ?

All right underwear if you must but pants; leggings/tights in summer ?

The same thing that possesses people here at the Cafe (and the talking heads in the media) to go stark raving bananas at the idea of someone glimpsing a bit of underwear (or lack thereof.)

I've noticed within my lifetime how sex has become this huge obsession in public discussion, to the point that everywhere you look, you're getting bombarded with TMI about sex or someone's sex life or the sex you're supposed to be having. Along with it, and probably because of it, people have gotten a lot more prudish. There's this pressure to show and talk about the most private things, but then you get treated like a sex offender if you do.

If you wear an unbifurcated garment, sooner or later you're going to end up revealing what's under it. That's just the nature of unbifurcated garments. You can take the traditional position: that you have nothing to hide, so your dignity is not threatened by what an errant wind or sightline may show. Or you can act like it's a fate worse than death and cover up everything with lots of layers, lest someone ZOMG! actually see something. What we see here is the latter.

AMM wrote:If you wear an unbifurcated garment, sooner or later you're going to end up revealing what's under it. That's just the nature of unbifurcated garments. You can take the traditional position: that you have nothing to hide, so your dignity is not threatened by what an errant wind or sightline may show. Or you can act like it's a fate worse than death and cover up everything with lots of layers, lest someone ZOMG! actually see something. What we see here is the latter.

I feel this is axiomatic, and everybody here knows it; risking the occasional accidental exposure is one of the risks that run with the territory and is very different from intentional exposure or outright exhibitionism. Hell, just last night when I walked down the stairs to track-level on Boston's "T" (Metro/Underground/Subway), I caught a strong blast of wind under a very full skirt and it's probable that some poor onlooker got more information than they needed; I also reacted quickly enough so it would have been obvious to even the most ardent skirt-hater that the whole thing was an accident.

My understanding of the prohibition of discussion of "intimate garments" is that if fetish took hold, the moderation crew might not be able to keep up with it and Skirt Cafe might become "Thong Cafe" or heaven-knows-what. Other Internet fora have had the same problem in the past; one just needs to look at alt.fashion in USENET for some startling examples.

AMM wrote:I've noticed within my lifetime how sex has become this huge obsession in public discussion, to the point that everywhere you look, you're getting bombarded with TMI about sex or someone's sex life or the sex you're supposed to be having. Along with it, and probably because of it, people have gotten a lot more prudish. There's this pressure to show and talk about the most private things, but then you get treated like a sex offender if you do.

I suspect that only the strongest-willed individuals are immune to this. I got a rude shock on the drive home this morning through a quiet neighbourhood near where I work, saw a little girl with a man who was in five-nines probability her father, and I -- to my utter disgust -- almost immediately thought paedophile. Such is the power of the herd mentality, which I try very hard to distance myself from. Yuck.

That bit, which might belong in "Personal Stories" aside, I agree with AMM's assertion that the constant bombardment is troubling, and may have produced a more prudish society than if it wasn't there. But, the sad fact exists that "sex sells" (otherwise the shills would be using different tools), and unless one is willing to crawl under a rock then one will just have to face it in day-to-day life.

In any event, the Miller Light bit is not going to warp me one way or the other; most American beers give me a headache, taste like an attempt to make beer-flavoured water, and seem to exist only as drugs-delivery mechanisms (like all too much of what tries to pass as coffee).

As far as wearing trousers under skirts (of any kind) it may just be done for shock value -- likely the same reason that white kids in the US picked up the droopy-drawer "gangsta" look, probably to tick off their parents. Shock can be a valuable tool; it's a pity it's too often used by the clueless.

crfriend wrote:My understanding of the prohibition of discussion of "intimate garments" is that if fetish took hold, the moderation crew might not be able to keep up with it and Skirt Cafe might become "Thong Cafe" or heaven-knows-what.

I'm not talking about discussion of underwear. I'm talking about how, in my experience, just mentioning the idea of people accidentally seeing under your kilt or skirt (or, in some cases, trying to) is enough to get people posting angry responses suggesting violence or worse.

crfriend wrote:As far as wearing trousers under skirts (of any kind) it may just be done for shock value -- likely the same reason that white kids in the US picked up the droopy-drawer "gangsta" look, probably to tick off their parents.

Funny, it never occurred to me that it might be considered "shocking." If anything, it strikes me as prudish -- that the wearer is afraid of feeling or being condemned as indecent, or that the wearer is afraid of inviting unwanted attention if she dioesn't have shorts or trousers on underneath. It also seems to correlate with the shortness of the skirt: skirts or dresses that barely cover the "essentials" are virtually always paired with shorts or trousers.

It may also be because young women these days are not used to wearing skirts or dresses at all and feel like they are practically naked from the waist down if they don't have trousers or shorts on.

As a datapoint, a lot of (female) Contra dancers wear "swirly" skirts which fly up if they get twirled. From what I can see, they all wear at least "bike shorts" underneath, often something bulkier. (I've seen maybe one or two exceptions.) Hot as it is in most dance halls, I seriously doubt they are doing it for comfort, nor can I see any intent to shock.

I also think there may be a sexist element here yet again.

If a woman shows a bit of underwear... it's always accidental, and besides, it's your fault for looking. YOU are a pervert.
If a man shows a bit of underwear... it is assumed he is doing it on purpose, especially since he is wearing 'unusual' clothes. He must be a pervert, or at least a weirdo.

If a woman shows her legs... it's sexy.
If a man shows his legs... it's something to be ashamed of.

I don't feel comfortable wearing skirts above the knee, which means I don't particularly have the problem of accidentally showing underwear, as it folds down when I sit. However, I see no reason in an equal society why men can't wear short skirts or shorts if they so desire without it being considered some absurdity.

Different_Trains wrote:If a woman shows her legs... it's sexy.
If a man shows his legs... it's something to be ashamed of.

At our local folk dance club, I wore a knee-length Union kilt and sandals (no socks, but not because of the silly 'socks with sandals' rule).
One of the women commented "Charlie's got his legs out". She then lifted her long skirt and said "And his legs are nicer than mine". I offered to swap legs...

Charlie

Different_Trains wrote:I also think there may be a sexist element here yet again.

I don't feel comfortable wearing skirts above the knee, which means I don't particularly have the problem of accidentally showing underwear, as it folds down when I sit. However, I see no reason in an equal society why men can't wear short skirts or shorts if they so desire without it being considered some absurdity.

Agree 100% with you. In fact I do wear short shorts all the time..... yes in the US and I have awesome legs, that make women jealous. It is time to stop believing that men are handsome. No men are beautiful. I think the greek knew that! Women have pushed us to believe that the man body is ugly... I read a good article about that which was telling how men need to rediscover their body and the beauty of their body.