Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
Discussion of fashion elements and looks that are traditionally considered somewhat "femme" but are presented in a masculine context. This is NOT about transvestism or crossdressing.
I was thinking about a "short-and-sweet" definition of crossdressing and that was the first thing I thought about. Being bored at work has it's advantages... sometimes!
JeffB1959 wrote:Pfft! Labels aren't worth my time. When I wear a skirt, I'm just wearing clothes, nothing more, nothing less.
While we are on the subject matter of vague dual meaning - "Cross Dressing" - - -
I would watch that "nothing less" position it could mean trouble more so than 'nothing more' ! LOL !
Remember what happened with the Emperor's New Clothing ?
"YES SKIRTING MATTERS"!
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
Easy, if you are dressed like a crussader or a monk, as long as you have some stylish cross on your garment, that's crossdressing. The cross is the dressing of the garment. A nazi general engaged in crossdressing too, since the swastika resembles some kinda cross. Skirts made of Bubblegum pink latex with a cross as dressing would also meet the definition. Mid-calf lengh and you can meet the pope in it. He could reject you for an abomination, if he'd like to.
For on that site down near the bottom was a link to an article entitled "8 signs you're in a controlling relationship". It describes what is going on in the relationship with MOH perfectly. Now all I need to do is get that across to her if we are to save what we have. The trouble is that dominance, the handing over of control a little at a time and the erosion of self can happen gradually over time without one realising it. The fact that I have been unemployed for nearly two years has not helped my sense of confidence, identity or worth.
There may be light at the end of the tunnel yet.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
Interesting yet quick read. Thanks. Of course no mention was made (rarely is, anywhere) as to why if a man wears "traditionally female" clothes, the act gets called "cross-dressing" - a moniker with decidedly negative connotation, while women can wear whatever they want, from either gender's catalog, with no one saying a word or even batting an eye at it? Quite the double standard, I'd think.
No shirt, no shoes, no pants, no gods. No worries!
Pity she still refers to them as "women’s clothes".
If I buy or make a skirt or dress it is not a woman's - it is mine, and I am a man (therefore the skirt or dress is a man's)
pleated wrote:Pity she still refers to them as "women’s clothes".
If I buy or make a skirt or dress it is not a woman's - it is mine, and I am a man (therefore the skirt or dress is a man's)
What other word or phrase would be as recognizably nominative of the set of garments being referred to here? As much as we or anyone else might abhor the term, which certainly no longer applies in the specific case, I'm not sure I see a better and (near-)equally usable term for the general case, as seems to be the use case in the article.
kidme: Thanks for posting this article. A few more like this can't hurt us, and I'm sure they will come with time.
human@world# ask_question --recursive "By what legitimate authority?"