Trip Report: Brattleboro Dawn Dance

[AMM]

Over Labor day weekend (Sept 2--4), I travelled with two acquaintances to Brattleboro, Vermont (USA) for their semi-annual Dawn Dance. It consists of English Country dancing in the afternoon, and New England Contra dancing from 20:00 to 7:00 (3 separate bands.)

As a warm-up, we first went to Greenfield, Massachussetts (about 25 miles south of Brattleboro) for their Saturday night dance, then drove on to Brattleboro to spend the night in a motel.

Since this is a skirt forum, not a dance forum, I won't comment on the music or dancing, but I'll mention again that no one bats an eye at men in skirts, not even mine, which are more conspicuous than most.

Sunday morning, I wore my 33" denim skirt with a grey T-shirt. I had breakfast in the motel lobby[1], then went to the local grocery store to buy some Gatorade[2]. No one said anything, but I noticed in the grocery store that every single person who looked at me glanced down at the skirt and then back up. It was obvious that they noticed, and also obvious that they weren't sure how to take it.

We later drove into the center of town for lunch and a little shopping, still in the skirt. We walked around town, going to several cafes before we found one with empty seats, and I later went into a music store, a thrift shop, and a "Subway" (sandwich shop chain.) As far as I could tell, no one paid any attention. Of course, Brattleboro, and Vermont, are sort of "hippie" epicenters, so I had not expected problems.

(I read in the local papers that there is a group of more or less "street people" who hang out in the middle of town, and during the heat wave of the summer, some of them decided that no clothes at all was the best way to beat the heat. After the wire services picked it up, there was a lot of negative press, but the locals apparently thought that a bit of nudity was a silly thing to get worked up over. But I digress.)

Now, if you dance all night, you need to bring several changes of clothes, preferably ones that are cool. I started off with my knee-length red dancing skirt. I originally planned to wear it with a red shirt and red socks, but my travelling companions thought that was a little too overpowering, so I switched to black socks. I brought 2 other skirts, as well as lots of shirts, but only used one of them.

We went to an Indian restaurant in town, and on the way, I got my first comment of any kind -- one of the street people looked at me and asked, "What's the occasion?" (Or so I'm told -- I couldn't understand him.)

At the Contra dancing, there were about 10-20 men in skirts[3]. It was much like my previous report about NEFFA -- a number of "like your skirt" comments and I think one person asked (in a friendly manner) why I liked to wear skirts. The guy with the ankle-length skirt made of neckties was there, and a man with a skirt in an American-flag pattern. I think I had the dressiest outfit of any man there, unless you count the man in a business suit (w/o tie or jacket -- he didn't want to die of heatstroke.) Some of the women had some pretty nice skirts & dresses though.

I finally gave up at 6:00 (an hour before the dance was over.) A workman of some kind passed me on my way to the parking lot and asked what was going on. (I told him.) Not a word about my skirt (I had on my long blue one by that time.)

On Monday, I ended up not wearing a skirt. The denim one was too long for the weather -- it had stopped raining, the sun was out -- and I just didn't feel like facing the funny looks in the grocery store. We drove home, I rinsed out the 8 sweat-drenched shirts, and that was that.

-- AMM

[1] In the USA, motels now often have a light breakfast available in
the lobby. This motel had 3 2-person tables, and served cereal, bagels, and waffles.

[2] A sort of soft drink developed for athletes, which is supposed to replace the salts you lose sweating.

[3] Men in skirts seems to be pretty much a contra-dance thing. I've not seen it at any other kinds of dances, except when they are held along with a contra dance. Butterfly Bill reports that he sees it at Rainbow festivals and Rennaissance Fairs. I'd expect it at Grateful Dead concerts, too.

[Stu]

I read in the local papers that there is a group of more or less "street people" who hang out in the middle of town, and during the heat wave of the summer, some of them decided that no clothes at all was the best way to beat the heat.

I read that too about Brattleboro and so I'll be avoiding that place. Guys wearing skirts - great! Perverts exposing their genitals to all-and-sundry? No thanks. Perhaps the town authorities ought to consider legislating - and the police to enforcing their ordnances.

Stu

[Milfmog]

I read that too about Brattleboro and so I'll be avoiding that place. Guys wearing skirts - great! Perverts exposing their genitals to all-and-sundry? No thanks. Perhaps the town authorities ought to consider legislating - and the police to enforcing their ordnances.

Stu

Stu,

Has it ever occured to you that those "perverts" you seem so keen to condem may just be regular people? Perhaps they just don't want to be forced to wear clothes any more than you want to be forced to wear trousers?

You don't like it, fine, don't do it; but jumping to conclusions about people based solely on how they are dressed (or not) is surely not what this forum is for? If we want tolerance surely we need to show tolerance ourselves?

Just a thought.


Ian.

[iain]

I don't see how a normal person can consider wearing nothing at all, in public. because there's nothing more likely to attract perverts than a licence to go naked in the street. there are naturist places they can go if they want to. what exactly are they trying to say? a fashion change is one thing, but I think everyone can tell the difference between that and public exhibitionism.

tolerance for individualism, yes, but in today's times, not to the point of absurdity, surely?

[Milfmog]

Iain,

As you said yourself, a licence to go naked in the streets is “…likely to attract perverts”, attracting perverts is a world different from being perverts.

Naked people may or may not be perverts, but exactly the same is true of skirt wearers or trouser wearers. My objection is that Stu made a judgement based ENTIRELY on clothing choice and that is inappropriate on a forum that is about promoting an unusual choice of clothing.


Ian.

[Stu]

Naked people may or may not be perverts, but exactly the same is true of skirt wearers or trouser wearers. My objection is that Stu made a judgement based ENTIRELY on clothing choice and that is inappropriate on a forum that is about promoting an unusual choice of clothing.

Being naked in public isn't simply a matter of sartorial choice - it's an act that is, to many people, gross and offensive. People may not approve of men wearing skirts (or jewellery or make-up or even having tattoos) for aesthetic reasons, or because it breaks with a tradition, but I have never known anyone who would say that it is actually offensive.

There are places set aside for the tiny minority of people who have the inclination to expose their genitals to complete strangers in the name of recreation - nudist colonies. There they are among like-minded people who consent to seeing others in the same state. In my opinion, anyone who insists on exposing himself to other people regardless as to whether they consent or are comfortable with it, and knowing that some people are actually upset by it, are either perverse, or perverted.

Stu

[Rogon]

It's my understanding that the original meaning of pervert was 'different or in difference to the norm". I wonder how many people think we are 'perverted' for wearing skirts? After all, we are different from the norm.

[Departed Member]

There are places set aside for the tiny minority of people who have the inclination to expose their genitals to complete strangers in the name of recreation - nudist colonies. There they are among like-minded people who consent to seeing others in the same state. In my opinion, anyone who insists on exposing himself to other people regardless as to whether they consent or are comfortable with it, and knowing that some people are actually upset by it, are either perverse, or perverted.
Stu

I don't think nudists actually consider they are "exposing their genitals to complete strangers". There's a whole different mindset to "flashing" as opposed to "being at one with nature", or whatever. Dedicated naturists/nudists obviously don't get their 'kicks' out of exposure for its own sake (like someone deliberately flashing their underwear.....?). :shake: To be honest, I'd be more concerned for them rendering themselves liable to (clinical!) exposure, sunstroke, frostbite or attracting the attention (especially at this time of year) of wasps, midges or other biting insects, never mind what they might tread in!

On the grounds that they might distract motorists, cyclists and all, then I would have to say they are being extremely irresponsible (outside of suitably designated areas) wandering the streets. As for attracting perverts, they're more far likely to have folk rolling in mirth at the incongruity of it all!!! :rotfl:

[Stu]

Whatever the original meaning of "pervert", its current meaning is, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, as a verb - "to lead someone away from what is normal or acceptable", and as a noun "a person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable". I admit that I have deep suspicions about the underlying motives of people who will happily wear a hat, socks and canvas shoes, yet for some reason can't bring themselves to don a light pair of shorts! I am also suspicious that the majority of practitioners of nudism tend to be middle-aged men, and the vast majority of women nudists were enticed into the practice by their male partners. There are some very persuasive theories that explain this as a manifestation of primeval exhibitionism and voyeurism that arises in some men as their testosterone levels and thereby their sexual potency begins to decline. If these are correct, then it is unarguably a form of sexual deviance. I don't "buy" their claim that nudity is natural. Humans migrated to climates in which they could not have survived without clothing of some sort hundreds of thousands of years ago. We are now physiologically, psychologically and culturally different to our naked forebears, so nakedness for us is no longer a truly natural state.

One of the psycho-cultural changes that has occurred is that, like it or not, nudity is associated with sex in all but very defined contexts (such as bathing) for most people. Because of that, many of us choose to keep the sight of the naked adult body away from our children. Some people may disagree with that - well, they can bring up their kids in the way they see fit. They should extend the same courtesy to the rest of us who feel differently about this.

This has no more to do with men wearing skirts, kilts or sarongs than it would have had to do with the first women to wear trousers several decades ago.

Stu

[Departed Member]

There are some very persuasive theories that explain this as a manifestation of primeval exhibitionism and voyeurism that arises in some men as their testosterone levels and thereby their sexual potency begins to decline. If these are correct, then it is unarguably a form of sexual deviance. I don't "buy" their claim that nudity is natural. Humans migrated to climates in which they could not have survived without clothing of some sort hundreds of thousands of years ago. We are now physiologically, psychologically and culturally different to our naked forebears, so nakedness for us is no longer a truly natural state.

One of the psycho-cultural changes that has occurred is that, like it or not, nudity is associated with sex in all but very defined contexts (such as bathing) for most people. Because of that, many of us choose to keep the sight of the naked adult body away from our children. Some people may disagree with that - well, they can bring up their kids in the way they see fit. They should extend the same courtesy to the rest of us who feel differently about this. Stu

It obviously depends what country you're in! If you're in Germany, don't travel on the railway line along Lake Constance/Bodensee (between Lindau, Friedrichshafen and Ludwigshafen) as between the railway and 'beach' there are any number of nudist establishments. They, and the people in them, are on 'full view' from boat or train. Interestingly, your observation about the majority being middle aged (& usually rather portly!) men applies, but there are a substantial number of women, too. I've never noticed any of the children (or adults) travelling on the train react other than an odd dirogatory comment like "Die Walbewegungen!" (The whale can move, or similar). It's just not an issue. Outside of gender, it has no sexual meaning (well, the sight might put you off!), nor should it have. Very definitely NOT my choice as in, "Never Ever!" The better side is that the Germans (& Austrians, too) don't seem to be phased by skirt-wearing blokes, either. At least I ain't wearing lederhosen with a flippin' feather or two in my hat!!!!!!

[Stu]

It obviously depends what country you're in!

This is very true. Germany has a strong tradition of nudism - in certain parts. In other parts of Germany, the sight of a naked adult in a public park etc would prompt people to call the police.

I wouldn't criticise Germany for its attitude in this respect - they are perfectly entitled to have their own perspective on nudity. But so have we. Public nudity has no such tradition in the UK and, I understand, the same applies to the cast majority of North America. So it still has the potenmtial to cause serious offence and people shouldn't subject others to that.

Outside of gender, it has no sexual meaning ...nor should it have.

I disagree with the very premise of this statement. All meaning is synthesised in people's minds, and it is for each individual to determine what meaning they draw from any particular stimulus.

The sex (i.e. reproductive) instinct in human beings is second only to that of survival. Certain things stimulate that instinct in some that don't stimulate it in others. Some men get aroused at the sight of a woman wearing stockings and suspenders. Some women get aroused at the smell of a man wearing a certain after shave. Who are we to say they shouldn't? Because opposite sex nudity is no longer a common sight except as a precurser to sex, an association between that nudity and sex has developed in the human mind. So the sight of one's sexual partner naked becomes something that is at the same time exciting and also deeply intimate, and thus a source of pleasure and a signifier of love. The fact that a tiny minority (nudists) have abandoned this link does not entitle them to force the rest of us to follow their ideology. By making us confront nakedness, that is precisely what they are doing.

Most of us don't want nakedness to lose its association with sex and the excitement and intimacy that stems from it because a handful of militant nudist activists decide they think it should be made mundane and everyday. Nudists have their places. They should be grateful society facilitates their penchant by staying in them.

Stu

[Departed Member]

In other parts of Germany, the sight of a naked adult in a public park etc would prompt people to call the police.

I suspect seeing a single person naked in such a location would prompt such a reaction, if only for concern of that person's well-being(?)

Public nudity has no such tradition in the UK and, I understand, the same applies to the cast majority of North America. So it still has the potenmtial to cause serious offence and people shouldn't subject others to that.

Well, on the basis that 'tradition' can be defined as three generations, then skirt-wearing by men would surely fall into the same category, would it not? I'm more concerned by the mental status of those people who claim to be 'offended' by the sight of a naked body. Are they not naked under their clothes? (Some folk now have a 'tradition' of walking Kinder Scout unclad, according to one TV programme - glad I'm unable to go there any more!):shake:

I disagree with the very premise of this statement. All meaning is synthesised in people's minds, and it is for each individual to determine what meaning they draw from any particular stimulus.

Most of us don't want nakedness to lose its association with sex and the excitement and intimacy that stems from it because a handful of militant nudist activists decide they think it should be made mundane and everyday. Nudists have their places. They should be grateful society facilitates their penchant by staying in them.

This is a very broad assumption that seeing (any) other person naked would (automatically?) facilitate any particular stimulus. People bathe their (naked) children, share communal baths/showers in sport and have saunas together, do they not? I know there's been a wee bit of publicity about some bloke walking naked from Land's End to John o' Groats (I agree, the hat, socks & boots tend to create a ridiculous image! :covereyes: ). Personally, I think he's 'off his trolley', and maybe in need of professional help. In the present day world, public nudity is both incongruous, impractical and indeed, potentially unhealthy.

[Stu]

Well, on the basis that 'tradition' can be defined as three generations, then skirt-wearing by men would surely fall into the same category, would it not?

Not necessarily. You are inverting my logic. If there is a long-established tradition for something, then it reasonable to assume that it does not cause offence. But the presence of a behaviour in the absence of such a tradition does not necessarily result in serious offence being caused. Men wearing skirts would fall into the same category of any unorthodox mode of dress in that it may surprise - even startle - but nobody would claim to be seriously offended by the sight of it.

I'm more concerned by the mental status of those people who claim to be 'offended' by the sight of a naked body. Are they not naked under their clothes?

I am offended by the sight of the naked body OUT OF CONTEXT. You see, context is everything. I recently went into a cinema and saw an American film with an adult theme. The "F" word was used liberally throughout. When I stepped outside, I witnessed a youth being arrested by the police for shouting that very same word several times. Human beings are creatures of context - it's how we make sense of the world. Even many nudists would say that it would not be proper for, for example, a teacher at a primary school to sunbathe naked in full view of their children.

This is a very broad assumption that seeing (any) other person naked would (automatically?) facilitate any particular stimulus. People bathe their (naked) children, share communal baths/showers in sport and have saunas together, do they not?

Firstiy, children are generally exempted firstly because they are not deemed to be "sexual" creatures, and secondly because they are not mature enough to appreciate the possible offence that could be caused. If a person's clothing was on fire, I would expect them to take that clothing off and I would not be offended by their state of undress because their behaviour was the result of some force majeur. Communal showers , baths and saunas tend to be single-sex affairs, and that makes a difference. Also, you are not forced to use those facilities, and if you do you can reasonably expect to see nakedness. This is not the same as stripping off in a car park.

I know there's been a wee bit of publicity about some bloke walking naked from Land's End to John o' Groats (I agree, the hat, socks & boots tend to create a ridiculous image! :covereyes: ). Personally, I think he's 'off his trolley', and maybe in need of professional help. In the present day world, public nudity is both incongruous, impractical and indeed, potentially unhealthy

We can agree on that. He is presently serving a seven month prison sentence for his nakedness in Scotland. :cheer:

Stu

[Departed Member]

We can agree on that. He is presently serving a seven month prison sentence for his nakedness in Scotland. :cheer: Stu

Are you sure he's not in the prison hospital recovering from those dreaded Scottish midge bites? :crazyeyes

One good reason to wear a Kilt in Scotland - the pleats waft away the midges - if they get up yer shorts or tr*user leg, however...........!

[Stu]

Are you sure he's not in the prison hospital recovering from those dreaded Scottish midge bites?

I hope he IS in hospital. He's certainly a case for therapy!! A few months ago, while on a flight to attend court in Scotland, he stripped naked on the aeroplane, and refused to dress. He was arrested when it landed, and he got two months prison for that. Immediately upon release from prison, he stripped off in the street in front of the police officers and was promptly arrested again. That's what he got his latest sentence for.

I hope he has a radio in prison and they play "I fought to law and the.....law won" over and over.

Stu