why can't men wear skirts ?

[Usquanigo]

Alf, I see your posts all over this site, denouncing anyone who doesn't fit into your stereotypical world as queer, gay, a stalker etc.

I'm just wondering how old you are, and how much life experience you have?

I'm guessing you may be quite young, and that you have little experience of life outside of your own perfect little bubble.

Or.... maybe he sees that there is no other way to get through to some people. Worst case, he's being REAL, and that's something that fewer and fewer people in this world can handle these days (gotta love liberalism).

I'm also guessing that you have never been to anywhere remotely cosmopolitan, say London, for example. If you had, your poor little magic-putty brain may well have gone into meltdown when confronted with the wonderful diversity that is the human race.

I've been to every major (and many not so major) city on the east coast of the US (where I am) and I have never seen a man in a skirt. (the occasional full drag queen in the downtown sections late at night, not withstanding) So your assertion of worldiness is either pure fluff, or Europe is FAR different in that regard, but even though we jokingly call England, Gayland, here, men are men and women are women, I just don't see it making all that much of a difference. (Plus I know many people from all over the UK and Europe, it all leads me to beleive that the first possibility is the case - you're pulling it out of your ass)

And while we're on the subject, the human race is not as "diverse" as you lot love so ardently to believe. We all have the same parts and thereby the same drives and desires. Blue to you IS blue to me. Period. This crap about everyone being totally different is a load of crap. (another great liberal/hippy idea)

Can you not accept that human sexuality is not expressed as what garments one chooses to drape over one's body, or is that level of higher brain function and emotional knowledge just that tiny little bit out of your mental grasp.

This is the closest you've been to accurate so far. Wearing a dress does not make you want to sleep with a guy. Clearly Terry Jones, Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, Micheal Palin, and John Cleese were not gay because they wore women's clothes. However.... there was a reason to do it - acting, comedy, etc. It was not an everyday lifestyle choice.

And so, while it IS true that it's sex with the same gender as you that makes you gay, NOT what type of fabric you choose to drape over yourself, that's just following the chain in wrong direction. Being gay leads to being effeminate (not always, but often enough), and that will either directly lead to effeminate or flaming styles of dress, OR, slowly manifest itself, trying to bust out, leading to such obsessions as frilly panties, women's skirts, and high heels (this warped, pseudo near-drag crap).

There's a BIG difference between sky_sissy and KiltyCol. Patrick Norton, an ex-host of The Screen Savers (first on ZDTV, which then became TechTV, then G4) was from NJ and would occasionally wear a Utilikilt on the air. He was often seen with a sledgehammer too, and did not look the least bit effeminate in stature or dress, even with the kilt. Fe-male, sky_sissy, and the others like that, are not trying to be men and just wear non-bifurcated lower body garments. They are SEEKING OUT women's clothes, undies and shoes. If it's not made for women and doesn't look girly, they don't want it.

What does that tell you? If you say nothing, then you're letting liberalism close your mind. It tells you they are not interested in attracting women for the purpose of having copious amounts of sex. Yes, even the proverbial "nice guy" still wants to be Gene Simmons or Tommy Lee. He may not dress or act like a bad boy, but he still wishes that every hot girl he sees would find him attractive, and if he ever hopes to be successful in dating, he must dress and act in a manner that makes him attractive to women.

Wearing their clothes is NOT it.

And before you respond (assuming you actually read the whole thing before responding), let me tell you a little about the messenger - I love to stand out in a crowd. Since I've had an ex-girlfriend get me to start wearing shorts, and the sandals that that necessitates, and since I've taken to liking it so much and because it's the norm for guys over here now, I've gone a step beyond, I have a couple of toe rings and ankle bracelets. I only ever wear 1 ring at a time, never both, and never more than 1 ring and 1 chain at any given time. I also have a "shower/spa wrap", as well as a see-through mini-sarong/pareo, and a mesh front gstrings, and several pairs of see through boxer-briefs. My girlfriend LOVES all those things. The wrap and sarong are for her and I only, as is the gstrings (they are NOT things I wear out and about, or on any sort of consistent basis). She picked out the mini-sarong and gstrings for me to wear actually - otherwise I wouldn't have ever gotten them. I also know that MOST women DO like guys in kilts. But KILTS, not women's skirts, and NOT looking effeminate. They want Braveheart, not a girlfriend with a penis. And similarly, my chrome is large and masculine, made for men, and is worn in a masculine style, it's just a bit of fun flair to set me apart (kinda like my car does too lol). People take notice, and women approve. And despite this (or perhaps because of it), no woman I have ever met has, found me to be the least bit feminine, not in stature, voice, behavior, or appearance.

So in other words, I am not against non-bifurcated garments, or unusual jewelry, or whathaveyou. Yet I know Alf is right. Which means that you're way out in left field there.

I put it to you, Mr Huckham, that you are a bully, nothing more, and nothing less. Grow up, and learn to live and let live, Alf, and god forbid you ever happen to encounter someone as intolerant and bigoted as yourself.

I put it to you, as illustrated above, that your response to him says more about you, than it does him.

[jo73]

Clearly Terry Jones, Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, Micheal Palin, and John Cleese were not gay

Sure?

Chapman was a vocal spokesman for gay rights, and in 1972 he lent his support to the fledgling newspaper Gay News, which publicly acknowledged his financial and editorial support by listing him as one of its "special friends".

The point I am trying to make here, is that Mr Huckham assumes all people who wear feminie items of clothing are gay, queer, etc., even when presented with evidence (i.e. other members on this forum), who are clearly not gay, yet make these clothing choices.

Usquanigo, you make some interesting points, which are presented in a clearly articulate way, something Mr Huckham seems to be incapable of.

You think I'm out in left field? That's fine. At least I have an open mind.

[Usquanigo]

The point I am trying to make here, is that Mr Huckham assumes all people who wear feminie items of clothing are gay, queer, etc., even when presented with evidence (i.e. other members on this forum), who are clearly not gay, yet make these clothing choices.

Not really, he's blasting people for being freaks and fruits. Not saying anything about who they sleep with, just what impressions they give about who they sleep with. And just because people in public may not say anything, or even comment to this thread, doesn't mean they aren't also thinking the exact same thing.

But above all that, the question is, why does anybody think that at all? Yes, there is a saying that the clothes make the man, but also, the man chooses the clothes. And as I said, what he wears speaks to his character and desires. If he's emulating a girl, then clearly, on at least some level, he wants to be a girl. And he's also not what the majority of women want, which is why straight guys on the whole DON'T dress that way, thus leading to an inevitable conclusion, no matter which way you come at it - being a sissy-fem-"boy" means you aren't right in the head, and more than likely play for the other team (as it were).

If you get riled up by Alf, then you are merely riled up by the message, which is reality, OR, are what we Americans refer to as an extreme liberal, a bleeding-heart (I stress it that way because I've heard that "liberal" means something different abroad), basically the flower-children of the real 60's flower-children/hippies. They hate the notion that anybody can perceive right and wrong, and always claim that people are different and there is no right or wrong because what's right for some won't necessarily be right for others and vice versa.

There's a fine line to tread. Yes, there are different strokes for different folks, but there is also right and wrong, and you don't have to embrace everyone's freakery as normal, or even ok.

Usquanigo, you make some interesting points, which are presented in a clearly articulate way, something Mr Huckham seems to be incapable of.

You think I'm out in left field? That's fine. At least I have an open mind.

Well, thanks, but I think he chooses to be more blunt for entertainment's sake. Hell, that's why I continue to follow this thread. lol

But as I said above, it doesn't mean you have an open mind. In fact, quite the opposite really, you've closed your mind off to the realities of nature. We have a saying here, a liberal is someone who's mind is so open it fell out. I'm not saying that's you, but that's the sound of what you're implying.

[Guest]

I agree with you Julie xxxx,its a sad state of affairs when guys start moaning that they should able to go out in a skirt!!!!!What will they think of next going out in our heels!!!!!!

I Know, dreadful isn't it? Next thing you know, the women will be wanting to go around in our (men's) trousers. What ever next!!!!
A a man, I much prefer skirts - they are better for the male anatomy - try thinking about it. Trousers? you women can keep the damned things.

[KiltyCol]

Is Kilty Col on Holiday?

Sorry, Alf - I have just got back from an unexpected collection of business trips, going as far as Inverness. Definitely not Holiday!!!!
Sorry, I have been missed.

[Guest]

I think there should be a new thread, Men Can Now Wear Skirts.

Don't watch for AlfHuckham, he's a fool.

I can't see what the big deal is, it's not so common for men to wear skirts, kilts are too expensive, so why not? Denim skirts are an easy start, they could get mistaken for shorts from far off. No one cares anyway

I don't see what the problem is if men want to wear them, let 'em.

It's a shame GuiltyKilts shut down, they had some nice gear at a reasonable price.

look at www.rokvoormannen.nl for photo ideas. I'm not sure if these guys go out dressed like this or it is all staged...

[davidhawkes]

What annoys me most is people who do not explain WHY it is wrong.

I can tell you that some men choose to wear skirts because they are cooler, more comfortable, not restrictive for your genitals, are a different style to pants.

So why is it wrong? No one in the western world has answered this yet.

[KiltyCol]

What annoys me most is people who do not explain WHY it is wrong.

I can tell you that some men choose to wear skirts because they are cooler, more comfortable, not restrictive for your genitals, are a different style to pants.

So why is it wrong? No one in the western world has answered this yet.

I agree. There is no technical reason. How it looks is just a matter of personal preference, in the same way as "what colours to decorate your house" We have great variety from people's varied styles of clothing.

[Usquanigo]

What annoys me most is people who do not explain WHY it is wrong.

I can tell you that some men choose to wear skirts because they are cooler, more comfortable, not restrictive for your genitals, are a different style to pants.

So why is it wrong? No one in the western world has answered this yet.

What annoys me is people who don't read and then say something stupid showing that they didn't read.

Alf is right, but that's not really the issue. It's WHY he's right. Women don't want a girlfriend with a penis, nor do they want a gay guy, they want a MAN, that acts, looks, and all around IS the part.

Whether you like it or not, clothes are a label that we apply to ourselves. It says a LOT about you, no matter what you wear, and if you have a strong desire to dress like a woman, then you clearly have some level of desire to actually BE a woman. That's NOT a turnon to women.

They DO like men in kilts. But they want Braveheart, not a near drag queen.

This thread is it's own problem too. If you like non-bifurcated lower garments, get yourself a kilt, and a woman who digs the look and call it a day. But to come on here and troll for acceptance to rationalize your fruity desires reveals that you are indeed trying to feel better about cross-dressing, AND that you know it, you just don't want to admit it to yourself.

Don't give me any bullshit about variety or cost. A kilt gets the job done, period. And for that matter, shorts do a damn fine job if you really want variety all that badly. (multitude of styles, lengths, materials and colors) Ya gotta pay to play. It's like someone wanting a fast car and crying about the price - buy it or don't. Wear a kilt or don't. But do NOT expect society to see you as anything other than freaks if you try to parade around in women's clothes, or even claim it's ok to do so.

[KiltyCol]

Usquanigo. Although I don't agree, what you say should equally be used (or not) as an argument for only allowing Women to wear Skirts. When I was a child, women who wore trousers were considered a bit odd or Butch, but it didn't stop the trend growing.

[Usquanigo]

Usquanigo. Although I don't agree, what you say should equally be used (or not) as an argument for only allowing Women to wear Skirts. When I was a child, women who wore trousers were considered a bit odd or Butch, but it didn't stop the trend growing.

Col, you should know by now that the rules, if they even apply, are different for women.

Women can wear their boyfriends shirts, and other clothes, and it's either totally inconsequential, or in some cases, even seen as "hot", or at least a sign of attachment (to said b/f). That does NOT apply to, or work for, men. They simply can't go wearing their girlfriends stuff out in public, or generally in private, without being ostricized. Often by the woman who owned the clothing as well.

Furthermore, pants are more practical. They took off thanks to Rosie the Riveter. Someone needed to build those planes and tanks and jeeps, and since all the men were in Europe or the P acific (with a handful in the med), it was the women who had to do it. And having to take large steps on structures up high, or straddle things (like a wing spar) while working is NOT compatible with skirts of any length or variety.

After the war many did not want to give it up, afterall, it was a feeling of empowerment, and GENDER equality on a political and social scale. It had nothing to do with fashin "equality" (which is a BS term only invented by soft, lazy people who have life too good and have nothing more important to worry about).

The same (well, similar) can be said about motorcycles and sports cars. They (spors cars) were brought back after the war, and their popularity grew. Motorcycles meanwhile, gave people who rode them, not only a chance to continue to ride them (like sports cars), but the necessarily more care free and dangerous nature of them (you can't pack much, and don't require much to store or care for them, and you are open, exposed, and in a much more dangerous situation than a car) lead to ex-servicemen, already a rough and ready bunch, bored with civilian life, to focus on riding and freedom, comraderie and looking to allieviate boredome. Enter the motorcycle gangs.

Thanks to Hollywood, bikers will never lose their stigma (of all the worst attributes of Hells' Angels). Thanks to Muscle Cars, sports cars never took off here. And thanks to a demand for women's pants, they got their OWN style, cut and made just for their unique needs, and thanks in no small part to the metaphor of pants equalling power and the feminist movement, they are now no longer a gender specific piece of clothing (save for particular styling), just like sneakers, t-shirts, jackets (of all lengths), necklaces, bracelets, watches, rings, and flip-flops.

In modern society, even outside of the metaphor of what pants represent, and the feminist influence, pants are just more practical. Yes, I know that a kilt gives more room for the boys, and yes it gives far more flexibility and for unarmed (or at least nothing more than bladed) combat, or just puttering around, in ancient times, they are superior to everything. But when you want armor, or have modesty, or just plain don't want the boys flapping around exposed, you need pants - Knights, equestrians, soldiers, race car drivers, pilots, the list goes on.

I doubt we will ever see the perfect storm of societal requirements and pressures that lead to pants being unisex, doing the same for "skrits".

You just need to understand and accept that. Remember, most every girl I've ever talked to finds the idea of a man in a KILT to be yummy - IF he's young and has the ability to pull it off (and isn't creepy in personality). They all think of Braveheart and the like. And some celebs are trying to push it too (just not that hard). Do it right (meaning with a KILT, and finding a girl who actually likes that sort of thing), and you're golden, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Why need to come on here and promote, or wine for/about cross dressing? Why beat horses that never even lived, like the one about women and pants?

Words have meaning and as such, do have power, whether we like it or not. "Skirt" is a woman's article of clothing, "kilt" is a man's. Just like women's jeans, sneakers, t-shirts, and jewelry, these too have to be made for each gender, and in this case, that includes the wording. Push for "skirts" and you're peeing into a gale force wind. But push for KILTS, and doing things in a fashionable, non-creepy, and appropriate manner (meaning not replacing pants, or taking on any aspect of femininity), and you MIGHT have a chance.

[davidhawkes]

Usquanigo. Although I don't agree, what you say should equally be used (or not) as an argument for only allowing Women to wear Skirts. When I was a child, women who wore trousers were considered a bit odd or Butch, but it didn't stop the trend growing.

Col, you should know by now that the rules, if they even apply, are different for women.

Women can wear their boyfriends shirts, and other clothes, and it's either totally inconsequential, or in some cases, even seen as "hot", or at least a sign of attachment (to said b/f). That does NOT apply to, or work for, men. They simply can't go wearing their girlfriends stuff out in public, or generally in private, without being ostricized. Often by the woman who owned the clothing as well.

I doubt we will ever see the perfect storm of societal requirements and pressures that lead to pants being unisex, doing the same for "skrits".

Why need to come on here and promote, or wine for/about cross dressing?

Words have meaning and as such, do have power, whether we like it or not. "Skirt" is a woman's article of clothing, "kilt" is a man's.

Everyone in the world has equal status. Some might be more important than others, but as far as human value is concerned, men are equal to women.

You can not have one rule for women and a seperate one for men. Stating that the rules as you put it is different for women is actually a sexist attitude.

If women can wear boyfriends shirts, then men can wear girlfriends shirts. Any other view, and I will ask of an explanation (I still await for a sensible reply).

Societys pressures regarding skirts compared with pants are only in place because people such as yourself are so close-minded. If you do not want to wear a skirt, then fine, but do not slam into others for wanting to do so.

A crossdresser is someone who immitates the opposite sex. A crossdresser is likely to have fake breasts/hips, wear a wig, wear makeup, wear a complete set of female clothing. A man wearing a skirt is not trying to pretend to be a woman, so can not really be classed as a crossdresser.
I myself am not prejudiced against crossdressers - if they want their appearance to be like that, then it is fine with me.

Both skirts and kilts are not gender-specific (a kilt is a type of skirt by the way). When you go to a mall or high street, why do you not see signs stating that the clothes are only for women? Normally there is the store name, with no mention stating that men are not allowed to buy and wear that stores clothing.

[Usquanigo]

You're an idiot, you wouldn't know a sensible reply if it slapped you upside the head - as you're just CONCLUSIVELY proved.

You live in an utter fantasy world that has NO bearing on reality, and so you come here and whine about how society doesn't accept your cross-dressing tendencies. And no, it does not always mean going all out, that's dressing in drag, aka a drag queen.

The fact is, you're so out of touch and so obtuse that you will forever be crying about how mean everyone is, putting on a false air of superiority, and ultimately dooming your whole quest. So, keep it up. We'll sit here and slap you around as much as we need to.

If you don't want that, go back and re-read the longer responses and learn a little about reality. It would do wonders for you.

[KiltyCol]

I enjoy wearing Kilts out and about and Sarongs in the house. I usually wear long trousers for work, but occasionally a kilt to work and shorts for things like washing the car and gardening. I certainly don't want to cross dress and don't see unbifurcated garments as cross dressing for a man. I don't wear jewellery of any sort, not even rings and have never liked even a wrist watch. Women are very encouraging and my wife is very happy with my kilt wearing. She wanted to buy me another kilt for my 60th birthday, without me asking.
I imagine that a lot of the men who wear skirts are probably older men who have "arrived". A long happy marriage and well respected in their job. The people who don't have to be very boringly ordinary and conformist to be accepted. The people who have proved themselves and can get away with being different.

[JermaineE]

Usquanigo (I hope I've said that right! ), KiltyCol is an envoy of www.skirtcafe.org, an American website that advocates men in Women's Clothes (or as they call it 'Fashion Freedom').Similar to www.rokvoormannen.nl , these guys claim to have 'skirt meets' and aim to recruit younger members into ther fold. They aim for acceptance, but most of these members have been divorced as a result of their actions.

It's true, women don't like men in skirts, because the world sees skirts as a feminine item of clothing. They want men to be menm, and if they relate to men wearing trousers, kilts, shorts then KiltyCol bustin' a denim skirt and saying 'but denim's a man's material' isn't going to cut it.

Bushwalker, somone else from SkirtCafe (known as DavidSkirts there) was also sent to 'advocate' their fashion sense. He got shown up when his pic appered here, and suddenly went very quiet

There are lots of p!sstakers here who will say it is normal and goad KiltyCol and friends by saying "I've got a denim skirt" or "I might go and buy a denim skirt" and have them eating out of their hands. This in turn, induces AlfHuckam and round and round we go.

Yeah, IMHO KiltyCol should stick to his own...