Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
On the topic of not flashing (including flashing our 'smalls'), the Old Navy skirt in JeffB's original posting bothers me a little.
The length may be OK, but that slit in the front of the skirt goes halfway up!
What happens when one sits down -- say outside a café or on public transport? All skirts except those flared or full will ride up, and with no overlap at the slit, your skirt suddenly becomes half its length and passers-by can see your upper thighs and what's beyond!
Hi Richard N,
I think that that skirt actually has an underpleat at the front, although the picture doesn't show it very clearly, so it would not reveal as much as you think.
With the comments that have been made about accidental or otherwise flashing of one's nether regions while wearing a short skirt, I thought you might like to read this extract from a book that I just got from the library. I found it interesting - but I've only just started the book.
What annoyed the Church even more was that cotes grew much shorter than tunics. To create a very long look it was necessary to drop the waistline to the hips to make the body look longer, and to shorten the hemline to show the legs in order to make them longer. From being on the knee in 1340, men's hems rose to mid-thigh by 1360, which was shocking, for it meant that when a man was sitting down or mounting his hourse there was a clear view all the way up his hose to his drawers. In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales the parson criticises these short garments very strongly because they show far too much:
Alas! some of them show the very boss of the penis and the horrible pushed-out testicles that look like the malady of hernia in the wrapping of their hose, and the buttocks of such persons look like the hinder parts of a she-ape in the full of the moon . . .
For the first time in western fashion, the male sex organs were being flaunted for all to see.
Taken from: Fashion for men - an illustrated history. 1985, Diana de Marly, B.T. Batsford Ltd. London.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
BrotherTailor wrote:Hi Richard N,
I think that that skirt actually has an underpleat at the front, although the picture doesn't show it very clearly, so it would not reveal as much as you think.
Quite right. That is an underpleat and it doesn't show anything that you wouldn't want to have displayed. It's the clever way it's fashioned that makes the skirt look like a pair of shorts that intrigued me into buying it.
BrotherTailor wrote:Hi Richard N,
I think that that skirt actually has an underpleat at the front, although the picture doesn't show it very clearly, so it would not reveal as much as you think.
Quite right. That is an underpleat and it doesn't show anything that you wouldn't want to have displayed. It's the clever way it's fashioned that makes the skirt look like a pair of shorts that intrigued me into buying it.
And here's a pic of yours truly wearing said skirt so everyone can see what it's like.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jeff, that skirt/shirt combo is great! Old Navy has much better clothes than the army surplus store.
Christopher, the history and literature nut in me loves all the extra information this site manages to fit in. I guess human nature will never change, there will always be new ways to shock.
Everybody- would fancy boxers be considered okay for an accidental viewing? I know a tightrope walker who did his act in a kilt over the audience used Sponge Bob boxers to add to his comedy routine and there seemed nothing untoward about that. Though, without that context I don't know what the general take on boxers being visible is. To me they look more like shorts, especially if decorated or with characters, than underwear so they don't seem as much as a flash material like briefs would be.
sapphire: Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate that. I do as best as I can. Yeah, that outfit is nicely casual and could work well just about anywhere. Once I take it on a spin, I'll tell everyone about it.
Skirt Chaser: Thanks for your comments. Old Navy always has nice stuff, and that skirt caught my eye from the very first time I saw it. Boxers? Interesting. I wouldn't know myself since I've never worn them.
Everybody- would fancy boxers be considered okay for an accidental viewing?
I'm not sure if you mean a genuine accident or a deliberate 'accident'. For a genuine accident, anything would be OK - as it would be an honest error. For a deliberate 'accident' I would certainly say NO. As a deliberate accident is akin to Flashing and it is a short step from there to the label of pervert etc. Who would want that?
It's never too late to have a happy childhood . . .
I'm thinking real accident and you are right it shouldn't matter since reasonable care would be taken that no underwear is seen. Maybe it is the appearance of low slung jeans and the accompanying upper layer of boxers that has me thinking of them as more like outerwear. There certainly are enough decorated pairs that look like shorts.
On the subject of skirt length, here's something interesting for everyone's perusal. While I don't think I could ever be as bold as ChristopherJ and wear something like this in public, but I just had to satisfy my curiosity and find out what I look like in a miniskirt, so here I am. The skirt I bought yesterday at a Gap outlet store for $9.99 was all of 16 inches long (yes, I measured), and it's perhaps too short on me, given how long my legs are, but you can judge that for yourselves. And before anyone gripes about my choice of footwear, after careful consideration, I arrived at what I considered the logical conclusion that high heeled boots worked better with this particular outfit than flats or (horrors) men's shoes. Again, while I don't think I could wear this skirt out in public, however, I don't rule anything out as the future is always in flux and I could change my mind and just do it. In any event, feel free to chime in with your comments.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
knickerless wrote: No doubt the high heeled boots will upset someone - but I like them. Nick
It's not a question of 'upset'! It's purely that it affects one's posture to a far more marked degree than it would a lady. In other words, causing one to abnormally thrust one's upper body forward, both to the detriment of one's spine and visual appearance. Dump the heels, seriously, before you do yourself permanent damage!
