skirtcafe.org

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:43 am 15A2BA80-30DD-4782-8C21-30A8D5832FB8.jpeg

The boots may not quite fit “kilt protocol*, but it’s a spin I’m allowing myself. After being apprehensive about wearing a kilt to church, I may have to do it more often!

Offkilter, I find it great that you dare deviate from the "protocol". 70 years ago, only men would dream of wearing boots - except for riding.

GerdG wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:52 pm

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:43 am 15A2BA80-30DD-4782-8C21-30A8D5832FB8.jpeg

The boots may not quite fit “kilt protocol*, but it’s a spin I’m allowing myself. After being apprehensive about wearing a kilt to church, I may have to do it more often!

Offkilter, I find it great that you dare deviate from the "protocol". 70 years ago, only men would dream of wearing boots - except for riding.

Thanks! While it’s unlikely I will ever desire to wear heels outside of Halloween (way too uncomfortable and not my personal style), I’ve always had a thing for riding boots. Knee-high boots with a skirt look great on women, so why not on men? They look more “hip” than kilt hose, unless formal Scottish attire is the dress code. I was fortunate to find a large size in a wide width and all leather without any bling for $70, including shipping! A men’s equivalent would have cost at least four times as much. Shoes have never really excited me, outside of my first pair of Nike running shoes which made me feel cool in the 80’s. . These boots are easily my favorite foot attire. I wish I had reasons to wear them more often, but that’s just a mental hurdle I need to conquer. If the majority of the Star Wars Universe, including Darth Vader, can wear them, then so can I!

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:28 pmI was fortunate to find a large size in a wide width and all leather without any bling for $70, including shipping!

Where

I've yet to find any "riding boots" in my size, that are affordable.

Uncle Al

Uncle Al wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:17 am

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:28 pmI was fortunate to find a large size in a wide width and all leather without any bling for $70, including shipping!

Where

I've yet to find any "riding boots" in my size, that are affordable.

Uncle Al

eBay! They were used, but must have been barely worn.

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:28 pm

GerdG wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:52 pm

Offkilter69 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 11:43 am 15A2BA80-30DD-4782-8C21-30A8D5832FB8.jpeg

The boots may not quite fit “kilt protocol*, but it’s a spin I’m allowing myself. After being apprehensive about wearing a kilt to church, I may have to do it more often!

Offkilter, I find it great that you dare deviate from the "protocol". 70 years ago, only men would dream of wearing boots - except for riding.

Thanks! … They look more “hip” than kilt hose, unless formal Scottish attire is the dress code. … If the majority of the Star Wars Universe, including Darth Vader, can wear them, then so can I!

I agree with you on both counts. Sadly, MOH seems to think kilts are “ridiculous” and “make her uneasy” except on formal occasions. And knee boots would definitely be out.

greenboots wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 2:35 pm I agree with you on both counts. Sadly, MOH seems to think kilts are “ridiculous” and “make her uneasy” except on formal occasions. And knee boots would definitely be out.

Thousands of years of human history, men wearing unbifuricated garments of one kind or another, us measly humans being alive a microcosm of that time, and we can't see beyond our own generational biases, sheesh.

I'm sure we could make a cute little chart with a timeline within a timeline of male fashions with a tiny spec showing the era where it was "unacceptable" for men to wear skirts/kilts/etc... in the western world. Not sure what good it would do, and I think the non-skirted portion would only apply to the west.

Offkilter69, I believe you have nothing to worry about.
If I can wear dresses, along with heels, nylons, painted fingernails, and makeup to church, you certainly can wear a kilt to church.
Several women have complemented me for my attire, and I did not receive any negative remarks at all. And my church is for spreading the Gospel for salvation and is not into social justice such as LGBTQ+
In fact, I have not worn trousers at all since mid June. Instead I have worn dresses and that includes going to doctor appointments and shopping, and having tradesmen in my house.

I wear alternate apparel as a MAN doing my part to enabling men to wear alternatives to the prosaic hackneyed coat and tie outfit as the only formal wear for men.

You have inspired me to get a kilt outfit and wear it when I go about my business in addition to wearing dresses.

John

Coder wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 2:43 pm

greenboots wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 2:35 pm I agree with you on both counts. Sadly, MOH seems to think kilts are “ridiculous” and “make her uneasy” except on formal occasions. And knee boots would definitely be out.

Thousands of years of human history, men wearing unbifuricated garments of one kind or another, us measly humans being alive a microcosm of that time, and we can't see beyond our own generational biases, sheesh.

In ancient Rome, no man in good standing could wear trousers. The ostracism that a man would receive for wearing trousers in Rome were severe.
Trousers were considered barbarian clothing, and they were call feminalia. They were allowed only for Roman soldiers in cold climates like Brittania.

John

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:40 pm In ancient Rome, no man in good standing could wear trousers.

Maybe so John, but nor would he have worn the clothes that were considered feminine in that era.
The tunica or stola, equivalent to a modern dress would not have been considered in the least bit appropriate on a male.
There really is very little point in holding up ancient garments as some sort of vindication for Men's fashion freedom in our day and age.
It should be quite sufficient to say that we can and will wear whatever and whenever, we damn well please.
Steve.

STEVIE wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 3:55 pm
Maybe so John, but nor would he have worn the clothes that were considered feminine in that era.
The tunica or stola, equivalent to a modern dress would not have been considered in the least bit appropriate on a male.

I did not specify what was acceptable attire for males; I simply made a statement that trousers for men was unacceptable clothing for men in ancient Rome.

JohnH wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:59 pm I simply made a statement that trousers for men was unacceptable clothing for men in ancient Rome.

Understood John, but that just proves that humans have been absurdly and illogically fixated on clothes for a very long time.
Seems like we haven't learned very much along the way.
Steve.

Speaking of clothing, my sister-in-law can't stand to wear dresses, and perhaps she doesn't own one. I on the other hand wear them all the time. When I was routinely wearing trousers she asked if she had to wear a skirt when visiting my church.
That's an odd question in retrospect as I as a man wear dresses to church, which I do more often than most of the women.

John

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 1:08 pm That's an odd question in retrospect as I as a man wear dresses to church, which I do more often than most of the women.

Perhaps, not so odd, really.
When I was attending church as a child, the dress code was about as rigid as it would have been in history.
In addition, even around the cafe, there seems to be plenty evidence to indicate that "normal" clothing is expected.
Even this thread, "Successful kilt debut", suggests a degree of uncertainty of acceptance.
Ironically, given my opening line, the "Kilt" would have been perfectly acceptable as long as it was correctly accessorised.
As for your sister's query, the reply would have been something like, "Stupid question"!
Fact is John, that your church is reflecting society in general, where non-conformity is tolerated, but that cannot be taken as a universal truth.
Steve.

STEVIE wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 3:55 pm

JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:40 pm In ancient Rome, no man in good standing could wear trousers.

Maybe so John, but nor would he have worn the clothes that were considered feminine in that era.
The tunica or stola, equivalent to a modern dress would not have been considered in the least bit appropriate on a male.
There really is very little point in holding up ancient garments as some sort of vindication for Men's fashion freedom in our day and age.
It should be quite sufficient to say that we can and will wear whatever and whenever, we damn well please.
Steve.

It makes me think where would we have stood in ancient Rome or Athens? Would we have been happy in the male skirts and tunics of time or would we have lusted after the women's clothes? Given that clothing opportunities of the time were not so one sided as they are now maybe it would never crossed our minds to wear a ladies dress?
My observation of 2023 is that unless women are going into town or out on the town they mostly dress in men's clothes from the women's side of the aisle. That is, around were I live they mostly wear leggings and sweatshirts. On that basis gendered clothing is a sham and as soon as these ridiculous taboos are removed the better and the happier everyone will be.

Instead of assigning clothing to gender, I think it would be useful to do the following:
1. For trousers in addition to the waist and inseam measurements, also have hip measurements.
2. Make dresses in two.chest configurations: flat.chested for most men, and busty configurations for most women.

"On that basis gendered clothing is a sham and as soon as these ridiculous taboos are removed the better and the happier everyone will be."
I guess I'm doing my part in helping to.eliminate gendered clothing.

John