Do you think men should be allowed to wear skirts?

[ciarafoley97]

This was brought up by an article I read in the DailyMail (www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8847579/Straight-married-father-three-reveals-hes-worn-skirts-high-heels-day-four-years.html)

Some would say the fact that people think it's ridiculous for men to wear feminine clothing but the reverse isn't true is because the patriarchy sees women as being inferior to men. Therefore in a true gender egalitarian society, clothes would have no gender.

What about dating prospects? Would you date a man who wore skirts/high heels?

I would think cross-dresser and autogynephilia. Has a fetish and gets aroused easily. Should keep his deviancy in the home and not in public where there are children.

Yes everyone should be free to wear whatever they want, as long as its decent of course.
My own DS loves to wear skirts but society says he shouldn't. If he ever left the house wearing one I sadly feel the reactions would mostly be negative, not so much from females but certainly from other boys and men.

Tinsel It's two different meanings of skirt, isn't it?

There's the neutral, single-fabric-leg-tube meaning, under which kilts and sarongs and so on are skirts.

And there's the local culture-specific sex-signifier meaning, under which skirt=woman=sex.

You can see that second meaning when the Scots are denying that kilts are skirts, because they're not invested with the woman/sex connotation.

And you and I know all too well that, in our culture, a man who has absorbed the second meaning and wears something that very much fits within that category is telling you something about himself - that there is some aspect of that second meaning which he desires to have applied to himself.

Crossposted with Noway there - just to clarify, a child DS hasn't absorbed the full range of meaning number two. For a little boy, a skirt is just a skirt. It's the reactions of his peers that teach him the second meaning.

@TyroTerf

Tinsel It's two different meanings of skirt, isn't it?

There's the neutral, single-fabric-leg-tube meaning, under which kilts and sarongs and so on are skirts.

And there's the local culture-specific sex-signifier meaning, under which skirt=woman=sex.

You can see that second meaning when the Scots are denying that kilts are skirts, because they're not invested with the woman/sex connotation.

And you and I know all too well that, in our culture, a man who has absorbed the second meaning and wears something that very much fits within that category is telling you something about himself - that there is some aspect of that second meaning which he desires to have applied to himself.

Of course a kilt is a skirt - the point is that it is culturally accepted by 100s of years usage as being masculine.

You seem to be saying that unless the garment falls into a category which is in the neutral category that a man wearing it will immediately suspect in some ways. Your argument contradicts "men can wear anything" as what you are actually saying is men can wear a skirt as long as it is the type of skirt which the local culture deems acceptable for a man.

I do think more men should wear skirts normally, so that some of the fetish power is removed.

Of course they're allowed. Freedom to choose what to wear should apply to everyone. Doesn't give a free pass to joining a female netball team though.

Not at all, Dido - I'm saying the man who chooses to wear a skirt in our culture is signalling something whether he consciously intends to or not.

He may simply wish to fuck with others' expectations and do his bit to degender skirts. Kurt Cobain was an excellent example of this, with his dresses that were female-coded but did not carry connotations of sexiness.

He may also be choosing to use his sartorial choices to signal submissive-degraded-sexy, which in our culture is associated with the female. I have a horrible feeling this may be what Brian Molko was doing, and have no intention of destroying my teenage dreams by trying to verify this.

The garment may be objectively neutral, but it is loaded with cultural meanings.

I had a completely hetero boy at school turn up to my lesson in a red leather mini skirt. He was tall and slim and looked great in it. He was a real tough nut too. I'd like to have seen the result of any kid mocking him.

I quite like to see a man in a skirt. Have dated one or two of them in the past (and I'm not particularly edgy or countercultural).

TyroTerf what you are saying is whether or not a man wearing a skirt which is not in the kilt/sarong variety is acceptable does indeed depend on the analysis of armchair psychologists.

You've decided Kurt Cobain was acceptable and Brian Molko probably wasn't.

They are allowed to wear them!

As long as there's some robust underwear going on underneath to avoid indecency why would anyone care?!

@RuffleCrow

They are allowed to wear them!

As long as there's some robust underwear going on underneath to avoid indecency why would anyone care?!

Exactly

What about dating prospects? Would you date a man who wore skirts/high heels?

Yes, if I found them attractive. I wish more men did experiment with clothing etc. I am aware that fashion is superficial and unnecessary but it is something I enjoy in the same way I enjoy chocolate!

As long as they didn't try to gaslight me that their choice of clothing meant they were somehow exempt from respecting women's boundaries.

No, I'm saying they may have had different motivations.

I'm also saying one chose garments that signal "female" and the other preferred those which signal "female+sexy".

Whether a particular style of skirt is generally considered appropriate for men is dependent on what baggage the local culture attaches to that style. From your tone I'm getting that you think this is a heinous thing for me to say. It's not. It's just a fact of human psychology: we attach meaning to inanimate objects.

OP asked "should men be allowed to wear skirts?" Should they be allowed to wear a neutral unbifurcated leg covering? Of course, yes. Should it be considered socially acceptable for them to wear female-coded highly sexualised garments in public, non-sexualised contexts? Debatable.

@TyroTerf

Tinsel It's two different meanings of skirt, isn't it?

There's the neutral, single-fabric-leg-tube meaning, under which kilts and sarongs and so on are skirts.

And there's the local culture-specific sex-signifier meaning, under which skirt=woman=sex.

You can see that second meaning when the Scots are denying that kilts are skirts, because they're not invested with the woman/sex connotation.

And you and I know all too well that, in our culture, a man who has absorbed the second meaning and wears something that very much fits within that category is telling you something about himself - that there is some aspect of that second meaning which he desires to have applied to himself.

I'd say it's more straightforward than that- it's about the likelihood that the particular style of skirt is worn with the intention to give the wearer a boner or not.

Any man who is doing something that gives them a boner in public whilst claiming it doesn't- well the rest of the sentence might get me deleted.

Should it be considered socially acceptable for them to wear female-coded highly sexualised garments in public, non-sexualised contexts? Debatable.

This is where I think men expanding the boundaries of acceptable male clothing is important. If men wear skirts in normal ways then I think any fetish aspect gets removed.

And anyone wearing sexualised clothing in an inappropriate context would stand out.

@DidoLamenting

TyroTerf what you are saying is whether or not a man wearing a skirt which is not in the kilt/sarong variety is acceptable does indeed depend on the analysis of armchair psychologists.

You've decided Kurt Cobain was acceptable and Brian Molko probably wasn't.

Calling two trans widows with experience of AGP "armchair psychologists" is naive as well as insulting.

War what you want. Men can wear skirts - but they are still men.

Clothing should not define a sex.

Of course they should.

I'm aware that some men wear them in order to get a sexual kick out of it precisely because they are women's garments.

But if we normalise the wearing of them for any man at any time, those men wouldn't get the same kick out of wearing skirts.

Doubtless they'll move on to nappies or furry costumes or something, but still. We can't construct all our sartorial rules around men's strange perversions.

@TyroTerf

No, I'm saying they may have had different motivations.

I'm also saying one chose garments that signal "female" and the other preferred those which signal "female+sexy".

Whether a particular style of skirt is generally considered appropriate for men is dependent on what baggage the local culture attaches to that style. From your tone I'm getting that you think this is a heinous thing for me to say. It's not. It's just a fact of human psychology: we attach meaning to inanimate objects.

OP asked "should men be allowed to wear skirts?" Should they be allowed to wear a neutral unbifurcated leg covering? Of course, yes. Should it be considered socially acceptable for them to wear female-coded highly sexualised garments in public, non-sexualised contexts? Debatable.

I don't think it is a heinous thing to say. It simply contradicts the bland statement that of course men can wear shirts. The reality is yes, but.....

Would I personally date a man wearing a skirt? No, I wouldn't and that would probably include kilt wearers- although that is for a different reason.

Calling two trans widows with experience of AGP "armchair psychologists" is naive as well as insulting

I have no idea which posters you are referring to. I meant the general tendency on here to diagnose AGP. I wasn't referring to a particular post or poster so calm down. There is such a tendency on here to take everything personally.

Not skirts, heels, BUT... although these are gay men (or at least YM is), I think they are incredibly sexy.

*I'm aware that some men wear them in order to get a sexual kick out of it precisely because they are women's garments.

But if we normalise the wearing of them for any man at any time, those men wouldn't get the same kick out of wearing skirts.

Doubtless they'll move on to nappies or furry costumes or something, but still. We can't construct all our sartorial rules around men's strange perversions.*

I don't understand this. Why would it matter what men (or anyone) get their 'sexual kick' from, as long as it's not illegal?
It's none of anyone's business except their own and (if involving another person) the other persons/people.

Klaus Hargreaves works a leather skirt pretty damn hard.