skirtcafe.org

So the garment is actually a skort. Hopefully he will eventually try something without the built in shorts.

Grok wrote:So the garment is actually a skort. Hopefully he will eventually try something without the built in shorts.

H&M probably did that to "ease the transition" and general uneasiness that guys would have about the notion of wearing a skirt. Of course it completely does away with a primary feature of skirts -- no inseam.

Reminds me of the "fashion bloomers" (or "Syrian Costume") that a few women wore during the mid 19th century-a skirt over trousers arrangement. Will most men have to go through a similar process before getting rid of the inseam?

crfriend wrote:

Grok wrote:So the garment is actually a skort. Hopefully he will eventually try something without the built in shorts.

H&M probably did that to "ease the transition" and general uneasiness that guys would have about the notion of wearing a skirt. Of course it completely does away with a primary feature of skirts -- no inseam.

What you get is the silhouette of a skirt, but not an actual skirt. One can say to oneself that it may look like I am wearing a skirt, but I am actually wearing shorts.

Grok wrote:What you get is the silhouette of a skirt, but not an actual skirt. One can say to oneself that it may look like I am wearing a skirt, but I am actually wearing shorts.

Actually, some of the long, baggy cargo and basketball shorts almost look like skorts, if not skirts. But I guess they preserve whatever psychological comfort there is from having an inseam.

I don't understand the point of skorts being designed in the first place. What advantage do they have over simple shorts?

Caultron wrote:

Grok wrote:What you get is the silhouette of a skirt, but not an actual skirt. One can say to oneself that it may look like I am wearing a skirt, but I am actually wearing shorts.

Actually, some of the long, baggy cargo and basketball shorts almost look like skorts, if not skirts. But I guess they preserve whatever psychological comfort there is from having an inseam.

Has anyone ever ripped out the inseam and converted these shorts into skirts?

The dude admits it has built-in shorts, then goes on to say how "liberating" it feels -- huh? Should feel like a pair of shorts! That's not liberating at all!

JRMILLER wrote:The dude admits it has built-in shorts, then goes on to say how "liberating" it feels -- huh? Should feel like a pair of shorts! That's not liberating at all!

More liberating than, say, blue jeans or bicycle shorts, I suppose...

Grok wrote: What you get is the silhouette of a skirt, but not an actual skirt. One can say to oneself that it may look like I am wearing a skirt, but I am actually wearing shorts.

Quite pointless!
I could understand a man hoping that his skirt will look like shorts so that no-one will notice, while keeping the comfort of an open garment; but to look as if one is wearing the tabou thing called a skirt, while being constrained in shorts, is just nonsense.
The first skirts I made (other than wrap pseudo-kilts) had a deep box pleat front and back to look like shorts, and a right-handed fly to look "masculine". Since then, I have learnt to accept myself in skirts that look like skirts.

Martin

Grok wrote:What you get is the silhouette of a skirt, but not an actual skirt. One can say to oneself that it may look like I am wearing a skirt, but I am actually wearing shorts.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to simply jump into the deep end of the pool and swim for it. You'd be surprised how many don't drown.

To this writer's mind, there is no "middle ground" -- it's either an outright skirt (or kilt) or it's an obfuscated form of trousers. I can see the notion of wanting two tubes that don't constrict the "family jewels" (I have a pair of petti-pants with voluminous ruffles below the knee that I occasionally wear as an under-layer, but more often just about the house "as-is".), but it does defeat the purpose somewhat, and really only to assuage the thoughts of the wearer slightly.

Best to go "full-throttle ahead" and dispense with the ruddy inseam completely.

couyalair wrote:a right-handed fly to look "masculine". Since then, I have learnt to accept myself in skirts that look like skirts.

Actually, very few people (single figure percentage) notice which way a fly or shirt buttons up. I have three women's half button work style shirts by R.M. Williams, and I don't think anyone notices the reversed button closure. Sometimes I'll choose to wear one of the shirts with a standard skirt for the symmetry, though it still takes a super observant person to see a lack of same.

I don't quite understand why he should feel liberated,compared to wearing ordinary shorts.

Grok wrote:I'm not sure that this fellow understands the difference between skorts and skirts.

It's probably cognitive dissonance. He wants to wear a skirt, but he also doesn't want to, so he looks for a middle ground.

Actually, I thought the quote about the transvestite Scotsman was going to raise the most attention. Interesting.