What do non abiding wives really think?

[Peter v]

I read constantly about men who have wives that absolutely don't want their man wearing skirts. Although I understand that this point of vieuw is possible, I don't understand what goes on in their mind.

Do they really think that we, in our thousands, hundeds of thousands, millions, are all acumming to some mental sickness because of the radiation from the atomic bomb?

Here in the Netherlands is nothing different to other parts of the world.

If only we could hear what those women really think. Only then could we maybe do something to alleviate the misinterpretation for a large proportion.


Peter v.

[SkirtDude]

deleted

[ChristopherJ]

I think you are asking the wrong question anyway, as very often there may be no logical reason for why a person has an opinion one way or another. It may just be a gut reaction.

But putting that aside, there must also be issues concerned with the fact that the husband is doing something (wearing a skirt) that will have a direct impact on her (the wife/partner) - and so while she may suffer some of the consequences of the mans' clothing choices (neighbours gossiping, rumours of gayness, pointing fingers etc.) - she has no control over the cause; i.e. the man wearing a skirt. She may well feel angry about such a situation.

In addition, there is the probability that the wife/spouse does not want to seem to be different from all of the other couples that live around them. She may prefer to be one of a crowd. She may not want to stand out like a sore thumb. But she will. And, again, she has no control over that.

[Skirt Chaser]

I think you are asking the wrong question anyway, as very often there may be no logical reason for why a person has an opinion one way or another. It may just be a gut reaction.

That was one of the most helpful things I ever learned while teaching kids and it applies to adults as well. Sometimes there is no why and asking why is counterproductive when the focus could be on dealing with what happened instead. Other times the reason is instructive, perhaps the objection is more of a style issue rather than a problem with skirts themselves.

[Peter v]

I think you are asking the wrong question anyway, as very often there may be no logical reason for why a person has an opinion one way or another. It may just be a gut reaction.

But putting that aside, there must also be issues concerned with the fact that the husband is doing something (wearing a skirt) that will have a direct impact on her (the wife/partner) - and so while she may suffer some of the consequences of the mans' clothing choices (neighbours gossiping, rumours of gayness, pointing fingers etc.) - she has no control over the cause; i.e. the man wearing a skirt. She may well feel angry about such a situation.

In addition, there is the probability that the wife/spouse does not want to seem to be different from all of the other couples that live around them. She may prefer to be one of a crowd. She may not want to stand out like a sore thumb. But she will. And, again, she has no control over that.

Very interesting. Even if my question was somehow esthetically wrong, that doesn't matter for everything we say is ultimately not right in some retrospect. But everything that is said in remark or question stimulates thinking on the part of others, which is also my goal.

As stated by Chris, the wife may not want to deviate from the way others around her are, but should she then have sex like the others do, drive in the same car, do partner exchange or whatever like the others do?

Is she married to someone? Has she any binding with her partner, is her surroundings more important than the man she married and has made vouws to? Are the other husbands and their way of living more important than her own? Should he get plastic surgery done to look the same as his neighbour? Why doesn't she live with the other men instead of her own husband?

The bond between the couple comes first, then a comparison with the surroundings can be done, and still there is no reason to put the surroundings before your bond with each other. Stand by each other, in what each does, or is overcome by. She doesn't stand by him with his finally being able to tell her how he really is, would she then stand by him if he became ill? His neighbours are not ill, so she doesn't accept that from him.

This is one of my issues. That is what seems to be forgotten, the band between two people, married, not only by justice, but by love and affection for each other, to stand by each other. Where is that standing by each other when the husband does something that other men may not do? Who gives a damn what the other husbands do or don't? It's the bond between the married couple that counts. I find the argument too easy to dismiss an absence of involvement with the partner.

We do understand that it may be something that has to be gotten used to, but that is something totally different than abandonning the husband, giving virtually a don't do that or else warning.

What are the actual vouws in english? Stand by each other, in sicknes and in health, for better or worse, good times or bad?

This is not an attack on women, but a discussion. On a forum for men who recognise their feelings, their choices, have made their choice, and are discussing everything that has to do with that. Is about what seems to be the action taken by many women, and which is often described as that there is nothing to be done about it, that we men must succumb to the whims of those women.

Well not on your life. If the most men think that way, let's stop with the whole forum, the whole "we" thing. As when the problem of actually wearing a skirt in public is not a problem, but that men succumbing to the whims of their wives, then the large majority of men thinking about wearing other clothing will never actually do it.

Some things just have to be accepted. ( not at all cost, which is also directed at the women, to make them realise how unreal, cruel it is of them not to allow their men to do anything out of the ordinary.)

From the stand point of men, who want to wear skirts, that not being wrong in any normal sense, and should be accepted by their wives. The fact that others in the community don't do it is just a rubbish excuse, that has no groud. Nobody does exactly what the other does, and is that the way you want to live? O, and the neighbour had two wives, so we must do that too married couples are a pair, and they do as they do. Others have no say in who you are, or what you do.

If your community is against the way you are, and shows it, which is totally something different to not doing something because you THINK that others MAY THINK differently about that, then pack your bags and get out of there. Don't live in a community where that whole community actually fysically discriminates you so that living is made impossible. Or stand and fight. But In the most if not nearly all cases, the community doesn't give a Damn, and there will be no discrimination or other that can be actually felt. And again with that said, the wife should not use that as an excuse to stop you in your tracks.

( there are always exceptions )

So as men, do your thing, and while the wife is not holding you back in any way, she can take all the time she wants to accept or dismiss it. If she dismisses it, then to cut it short, that's the end of the line. Living as a clone of the neighbour is no option. If your wife wants you to be that, then she should make a trio with the other and leave you . I am not advocating for a divorce, but turning the tendancy of submittance to the woman, into standing up for your rights. If there was something terribly wrong with evolving so far that you start wearing skirts, then any unacceptance on the part of the wife would be acceptable, but there is nothing wrong in any way. You are the man she married, and being MARRIED, means that you stand by each other. Tha man is evolving, and it is then up to the wife to stand by him as he does so. Not be like a traitor and have nothing more to do with him because he is thinking for himself for a change. O shock.


Peter v.

I fully understand that every individual has something he or she just cannot accept, and does not know why. But I see no reason that it should apply to skirt wearing.

[Milfmog]

Peter,

I started to write a long reply to this but decided instead that this is all I need to say:

1. You've missed Christopher's point: He said logic frequently has nothing to do with it but all your arguments are logically based (we'll ignore the issues of comparability and relevance). There is no point in arguing logically against an opinion that is not based on reason.

2. My wife is FAR FAR more important to me than wearing a skirt. If it were a major issue for her I would readily give it up and, in the words of Pete Townshend "I'd call that a bargain, the best I ever had"*.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Since1982]

logic frequently has nothing to do with it but all your arguments are logically based (we'll ignore the issues of comparability and relevance). There is no point in arguing logically against an opinion that is not based on reason.

This fits SO many discussions in life it just floors me with the absolute perfection of what Chris said. I've personally had so many arguments with people that don't think logically, (and I do) and those discussions always end up being transformed from discussions to one sided screamathons, one sided 'cause I just stop being involved in them.
Had one recently that turned out the same way. I finally figured the only way to feel good about my side was to stop discussing. Some folks just MUST always have their own way, you can't argue with those kind any more than you can empty Lake Superior with a bucket.

[crfriend]

[ChristopherJ] said logic frequently has nothing to do with it but all your arguments are logically based (we'll ignore the issues of comparability and relevance). There is no point in arguing logically against an opinion that is not based on reason.

From my experience, that's dead on. Sometimes opinions and actions are not governed by pure rational logical thought; sometimes they're based on emotions and perceptions. Note that this does not invalidate those opinions: they're just as valid to the holder as the logically-arrived at ones of another, even though the logical types are liable to regard the emotionally-driven opinions as hokum (which ia a mistake).

Men and women also tend (this is not an absolute. mind you) to think in subtly different ways. Now, I'm no psychiatrist; I don't even play one on TV (television, before any wags get the wrong idea), so what follows is from my personal experience and analysis.

Men, when given opportunity, will typically dissect a problem before forming an opinion on it, and form that opinion based on reasoned thought and by applying their own life-experiences to what they see on the dissection table. Men certainly make use of their "first impression" of (or "gut reaction" to) a notion, but that's more frequently in the "fight or flight" realm than under more controlled or relaxed positions. In this scenario, men troubleshoot and actively try to change the world around them in order to achieve a goal.

Women may be more inclined to place heavier weight in their first impressions filtered through their life-experiences. Whilst this may seemingly deprive them of the deep workings of things, this attitude is usually quite enough to get by in the world. Unfortunately, whilst that approach doesn't provide terribly well for a world that's in constant fast-paced flux, it's certainly applicable for the pace of child-rearing (I know this sounds terribly sexist, but it's absolutely ]i]not[/i] intended that way) because the changes -- whilst sometimes very dramatic -- happen over long periods of time and can frequently be predicted so there's less need to rationally pick something apart in the present. In this scenario, women tend to nurture (or manipulate) to achieve a goal.

Both approaches are valid and need to be respected (if, sometimes, not well understood). I believe that the two seemingly-divergent processes can be leveraged by successful (in a relationship sense) couples, but only if the two make the attempt to understand the other's way of forming opinions and positions. And, in any event, unless something as small as a bloke wearing skirts is concerned, that's well down in the priority list of what goes on in a relationship unless there's undue weight being put on it or it's become pathological.

2. My wife is FAR FAR more important to me than wearing a skirt. If it were a major issue for her I would readily give it up and, in the words of Pete Townshend "I'd call that a bargain, the best I ever had"*.

Well put, and it seems that your wife is on the same sheet of music with you in that regard in that she doesn't regard it as such an issue that it might cause undue harm to the relationship. That's healthy. I just consider myself extremely lucky that I have an understanding partner.

[Pythos]

I am reading this thread in near disbelief. I am in essence hearing justification for bigotry, and hatred. It would seem with this line of thinking someone who is a racist can have justification for being one, if his or her reasoning is irrational.

Here is a scenario: While out and about you meet a fellow. After several more meetings with this guy you and he become fast friends (that's it, nothing kinky here). You two hang out maybe once or twice a week.

Then one day, he come to your house asking for some advice, but it is your wife (who hasn't met him), who answers the door, and promptly slams the door shut in the guys face.

She confronts you about this degenarate punk goth kid having the nerve to come to your house, and forbids you from hanging out with him (Sheesh it almost sounds like a mother son issue here). When you ask her why she says "because guys should not be wearing earings" (take note, you had no problems with this guy's appearance, you instead noticed how fun and knowledgeable he is). So after some argument you get down to the base of her reasoning, and discover that her reasoning is irrational in every way shape or form.

What do you do?

Now change the guy to someone of a race, other than white.

Why is the fact the reason irrational justification for the person's biggoted attitude?

Someone here posted "my wife is Far Far more important than wearing skirts" That's all cool, so why does that give her justification for limiting you? You won't be the one filing divorce papers, and if she truly loves you, then she wont either.

Sorry, the irationality of someone's views is not grounds for bigotry, and when people allow such to be, then they just allow more bigotry.

[sapphire]

Pythos, Thanks for posting. This thread did not ring true with me either and I'm TOTALLY accepting of men in skirts (or leggings, or catsuits)

I'm willing to chalk some of this up to a language problem, but the "non-abiding" part comes across as almost "illegal", almost as though if the woman deosn't like to see her man in a skirt, or whatever, she should be thrown in jail. Again, that may be faults in translation. But why does it have to come down to the woman has to accept everything the man does "or else"

Peter v wrote

Is about what seems to be the action taken by many women, and which is often described as that there is nothing to be done about it, that we men must succumb to the whims of those women.

Well, historically and in particular cases of domestic abuse, that statement works the other way around.

Surely there are more women's shelters than there are men's shelters.

[crfriend]

She confronts you about this degenarate punk goth kid having the nerve to come to your house, and forbids you from hanging out with him (Sheesh it almost sounds like a mother son issue here). When you ask her why she says "because guys should not be wearing earings" (take note, you had no problems with this guy's appearance, you instead noticed how fun and knowledgeable he is). So after some argument you get down to the base of her reasoning, and discover that her reasoning is irrational in every way shape or form.

What do you do?

There is likely more going on here than meets the eye. Do the notional husband and wife actually communicate well? Since the husband has known this chap for a while (long enough to "hang out a couple of times a week"), I find it odd that husband and wife have not chatted about his new acquaintance. Is she already suspicious that he's having a affair because she clearly doesn't know where he is at all times? That puts a bit of a twist on it, doesn't it?

Now -- "What to do?" Ask her *why* she feels the way she does; ask if there's some deep phobia that may not lie in her conscious mind that may be nagging at her. She may have had a boyfriend from long before she met her husband who wore earrings and who hurt her terribly. Perhaps her father wore earrings and left her and her mother. Neither of those are rational reasons for her current behaviour, but at least are understandable emotional responses. Once those get subjected to the light of day, understanding can take place, and the original hurt can be separated from the present.

I'll come clean in this regard; I have one whole lot of emotional baggage from years (and relationships) gone by, and occasionally that baggage interferes with my own rational judgment -- to the point where it has caused real hurt and real trouble in my present relationship -- decades in some cases after the initial hurt was dealt out. And old bits of hurt occasionally bubble to the surface where I have to ferret them out, confront them, and put my current context back in line with where it needs to be -- and this can cause enormous emotional turmoil if one is not prepared for it. I recall, from composing a message on SkirtCafe, as I am right now, commenting on, and condemning, a particularly nasty form of manipluative behaviour and realised that I myself had been guilty of that in the past to my wife; with luck, few here will have any idea of what raced through my mind -- both as critical thought and raw emotional angst -- when I had to confront myself from the past. And I recognised it -- the notional spouse above likely isn't, and is experiencing only the raw angst and can't explain why.

Why is the fact the reason irrational justification for the person's biggoted attitude?

It's not a justification; it's about understanding a basis for an opinion. The understanding doesn't make it right, but makes it possible to face it and then apply rational thought to it.

[Milfmog]

Pythos,

I am in essence hearing justification for bigotry, and hatred. It would seem with this line of thinking someone who is a racist can have justification for being one, if his or her reasoning is irrational.

As Carl has already written, this is not about justifying anything, it was about recognising that a rational argument will not overcome an irrational emotion or belief. That does not mean that the belief should just be accepted, simply that it will not be overcome by logic, further understanding and communication are required in order to come to a happy conclusion.

Someone here posted "my wife is Far Far more important than wearing skirts" That's all cool, so why does that give her justification for limiting you? You won't be the one filing divorce papers, and if she truly loves you, then she wont either.

Firstly I should point out that my wife is supportive and understanding, though it took her a while to get used to the idea. There are far more important things in life than my choice of fashion and, had a compromise been required, wearing skirts would have been so far down my personal list of priorities that I would happily have dropped it had it been that important to her.

In the event I compromised with only kilts outside the house initially but once she got used to it and saw how little reaction there was she became comfortable with my choices and relaxed. Could we have reached that point by logical reasoning? No, not a chance, but even though the logic route was closed to me we were able to work thorough it to everyone's satisfaction.

Had my wife been a hopeless bigot, racist or whatever, I would have discovered that many years ago and we would never have fallen in love.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Departed Member]

I am reading this thread in near disbelief. I am in essence hearing justification for bigotry, and hatred. It would seem with this line of thinking someone who is a racist can have justification for being one, if his or her reasoning is irrational.

That really is rich, coming from someone who initiates a thread complaing about blokes using the word "bi*ch" to describe a lady. If that ain't racist, I don't know what is! It seems to have been in common useage amongst folk of a coloured persuasion, for many years, if American films are anything to go by. Certainly used here in the UK, as a result of exposure to such films, to the extent that it's now used quite openly on mainstream TV, by men & women alike.

[Pythos]

Boy Merlin, you sure do jump to conclusions.

First off the men refering to women as B**tches I have come across have been White, as white can be.

Second being offensive is not just a thing reserved for one race, and using the word B__tch to describe women in general is offensive, no matter the skin color of the person issuing the insult.

Also, how in the hell is me starting a thread off about how offensive it is to refer to women as that word, racist?!!!!!

Your posts of late have been negative and discouraging, but this one takes the cake.

[AMM]

...Men, when given opportunity, will typically dissect a problem before forming an opinion on it, and form that opinion based on reasoned thought and by applying their own life-experiences to what they see on the dissection table. ...

I have a different take on this, no doubt based on my own life experiences.

First of all, most of the time when people say they are reaching their conclusions based on "reasoned thought," my own take on it is that they have come up with their conclusion first and then come up with rationalizations for their conclusion. Cf. the science fiction writer whose name I can't remember who was fond of saying "Man is a rationalizing animal."

To me, this is actually sensible: beliefs based on experience are far more reliable than those based on reasoning from a set of "facts." In my experience as a mathematician, scientist, and now "software engineer," not to mention in life, chains of reasoning don't actually lead you to useful conclusions, they just help you to find holes in (provisional) conclusions you've reached by other means.

Second, in the real world, "reasoned thinking" or "logical argument" is often a kind of power play, or intellectual jiujitsu[*], not a dispassionate journey towards Truth(tm). All too often, what kind of argumentation is considered "rational" and what are allowed to be considered "facts" is determined by who holds the social power. As any lawyer can tell you, if you control the rules of Law and the rules of evidence, you control the outcome. I've been on the receiving end of this more often than I like: your own experiences are excluded as "subjective", your reasoning is shouted down as "irrational" because it isn't the way the people around you like to dissect things, and then you're written off as crazy for reaching the conclusions you reach. If you do manage to score a point, they drop all their "rationality" and tell you you are just being unreasonable. And when you get angry about it, it's taken as proof that you are incapable of being reasoned with.

If women are less enamourate of "reasoned thinking," it may be that they often experience what goes by that name as a game rigged against them, one in which their own experiences and concerns are "proven" to be negligible and and further evidence that it is their own fault that they are where they are in society. And if men are, on the whole, more enamourate of it, might it be because "reasoned thinking," as usually understood and practiced, usually ends up justifying their doing whatever it is they are doing?

[*] Socrates, considered one of the "fathers of reason," is sometimes described as a master of this sort of verbal jiujitsu. Intellectual discussion was in his time often described in the same terms as a wrestling match.

Women may be more inclined to place heavier weight in their first impressions filtered through their life-experiences. Whilst this may seemingly deprive them of the deep workings of things, this attitude is usually quite enough to get by in the world. Unfortunately, whilst that approach doesn't provide terribly well for a world that's in constant fast-paced flux,...

Carl, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I can't figure out how to see this as anything but patronizing.

As for dealing with "a world that's in constant fast-paced flux," the women I know seem to be managing at least as well as the men I know.