Men in Women's Shoes

[dillon]

I dispute defining what I wear as an act of "crossdressing." We've had this discussion ad nauseum. You can see all the old threads where the term is debated. The term simply has too much baggage attached to it. It traditionally connotes a closeted man scratching some kinky itch by wearing woman's clothing; whether you like that fact or not, you aren't likely to alter the unbecoming image associated with the term. So please don't call me a crossdresser - you can label yourself that way, but I find it offensive. And I think it is counter-productive to have it associated with the SC fashions fora; I recommend saving the term for non-fashion fora discussion threads.

[Gordon]

I adapt to no conformation other than being who I am, strive for no ideal save for my own, I'm out to establish my own fashion alternative, not anyone else's.

Jeff I agree 150%

[Fred in Skirts]

I adapt to no conformation other than being who I am, strive for no ideal save for my own, I'm out to establish my own fashion alternative, not anyone else's.

Jeff I agree 150%

And I agree with both of you.

What I wear, where I wear it, and how I wear it are my business and none of anyone else's.

While I am a straight male and will continue to be a straight male I wear skirts and on an occasion a dress I am not trying to be female at all.

I wear because I want to be comfortable and to enjoy the comfort. Also because I CAN!!

Fred

[moonshadow]

Well, like it or not, we are what we are. But I don't think we should move in the direction of "thou shall nots" on this board. Some guys have feet that are just to big for most women's shoes, but that doesn't mean he can't explore fashion freedom in other ways. In addition, some guys are a little thin in the hair department, while others have long thick hair that rivals most young women.

At the end of the day, we just have to work with what we've got!

[crfriend]

At the end of the day, we just have to work with what we've got!

Indeed. It's the ability to "work with what we've got" that sets us apart from the rest of the herd.

[JeffB1959]

Well, like it or not, we are what we are. But I don't think we should move in the direction of "thou shall nots" on this board. Some guys have feet that are just to big for most women's shoes, but that doesn't mean he can't explore fashion freedom in other ways. In addition, some guys are a little thin in the hair department, while others have long thick hair that rivals most young women.

At the end of the day, we just have to work with what we've got!

Even though I wear a women's 13 wide, I look damn good in heels, especially pumps, as you can see below. Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule, but men can successfully wear women's shoes. But I agree that we do indeed have to work with what we have.

[Gusto10]

Again the term crossdressing. Skirts, heels and boots are by origin male attire. So why even consider it as female attire. Maybe we should reconsider how to assign a gender to clothing. My proposition: the gender of the wearer is defining the gender of the clothing.
Only beancounters need definitions of what is what in order to let credit equal debet.

[Caultron]

Again the term crossdressing. Skirts, heels and boots are by origin male attire. So why even consider it as female attire. Maybe we should reconsider how to assign a gender to clothing. My proposition: the gender of the wearer is defining the gender of the clothing.
Only beancounters need definitions of what is what in order to let credit equal debet.

Anything but another epic thread on why wearing heels, hose, and a skirt isn't cross-dressing. Everyone's definition is different.

[Kirbstone]

You don't have to go the full Monty with make-up, wig &c. to crossdress. The wearing of pumps, tights, femm skirt or dress &c. IS crossdressing. Period.

Tom.

[crfriend]

You don't have to go the full Monty with make-up, wig &c. to crossdress. The wearing of pumps, tights, femm skirt or dress &c. IS crossdressing. Period.

Well, let's see....

I've worn tights when it's been nasty cold out and I needed something more than bare legs (not to be confused with bear arms) could provide, a heavy petticoat for the same reason, a skirt (because it was there), a blouse because it was a colour that worked splendidly with everything else, and a waistcoat and bog-standard loafers. This does not go into the waist-length ponytail conveniently restrained with a bow, nor my full beard.

So, does the above rig constitute "crossdressing"?

If so, then the standard "definition" be damned. We need to do better.

[moonshadow]

By the most basic, standard definition, any one of us who strays beyond the men's kilt, or wears ANYTHING that is intended for the feminine sex and/or gender is a crossdresser.

Again, that's the most BASIC definition. If it was intended for a woman, and you're wearing it... you're a crossdresser by definition. (We've been down this road before)

That being said... What constitutes a "crossdresser" IS a moving target, and it's basically up to the clothing industry to decide. For instance, I believe that since the Macabi and SkirtCraft skirt is marketed to both men and women, then either side can wear them and NOT be considered a crossdresser by definition.

If a woman wears a pair of trousers that's sized in inches, (for those of us state side) I.E. a 34" pair of jeans, then she is wearing men's jeans and is a crossdresser. If a man wears that same pair that has a "size 14" on it. Then he is the crossdresser...

Hmmmmm.....

BUT what happens if someone at the clothing factory screws up and swaps the tags by accident? Let say both had right hand buttons for the sake of argument.

So I guess, what it all boils down to... is are we going to let the clothing industry define us? It's just a word. I've been called lots of things, some are accurate, some are not.

.. I mean LITERALLY.... there are people in clothing design that say... a-ha! THAT shall be a women's garment, and THAT shall be a men's! Who makes these damned rules?!
Some sort of fashion God? Is it the Illuminati???

Well, I bend my knee to no one on the face of this planet. They can call me what ever they want. I'm me.

Here's what happened to the last jar society tried to put me in....

brokenjar.jpg

To hell with their rules! I'll wear what I want!
And anyone who has a problem with it can go step on that broken jar with their bare feet!

[Fred in Skirts]

No labels for me I am who I am. I will not be who you want me to be or what you want me to be. If that bothers you, you can "Kiss My Grits" ( I gatta be nice here or the mods will wake up and we don't want that! ) I go to a salon for a pedicure why because I have Diabetes and it helps me to keep track of how my feet are doing. But I get polish on my toes because I like it. Oh Yes, I usually wear flip flops in the summer months. So along with my skirts I sometimes wear tops and other outer wear that someone says belongs to women. It belongs to ME!!!!

Fred

[skirtingtheissue]

... I mean LITERALLY.... there are people in clothing design that say... a-ha! THAT shall be a women's garment, and THAT shall be a men's! Who makes these damned rules?!
Some sort of fashion God? Is it the Illuminati???...

The same way a person says "Those pink socks shall be for girls, and these blue socks shall be for boys." Equally poor labeling.

-------Henry

[Disaffected.citizen]

You don't have to go the full Monty with make-up, wig &c. to crossdress. The wearing of pumps, tights, femm skirt or dress &c. IS crossdressing. Period.

Tom.

I just wonder whether an individual's definition is influenced by environmental or social factors, such as local acceptance?

None of the items are "female" per se, but in combination?

I have nobody telling me I must not, should not, cannot, wear a skirt now, yet I no longer wear anything that would raise an eyebrow. I am "total man", but for the ponytail, in presentation as I walk down the street, having retreated to the closet as a skirt wearer. I would not, however, consider any man wearing everything from the "ladieswear" aisles to be a crossdresser unless they were to be presenting en-femme, simply because it is a term that never applies to women. That is not to say that sometimes, when I find a picture of a man "women's" clothing, my initial reaction is jarred by the image. I'll admit that when (say) Kilted John first posted some of his pictures my initial thought was "no, that doesn't work"; but I've become conditioned to his style and there is no mistake that he's a man and an individual. His style would not be my style, but he positively rocks.

Moonshadow's latest picture is a bit of a departure from what we usually see from him. It probably looks more "femme" than usual simply because of conditioning. JeffB always looks impeccable, head to toe, yet there is no mistaking him as a man.

To tell the truth, though, some of the "poses" for the pictures here (and I would include some of my own pictures, not posted on this site, as well as yours) look more "femme", even (dare I say) "gay", to my mind than the overall outfit. The poses themselves are more jarring than the clothes. Why? Conditioning, pure and simple.

To some extent, according to western societal norms, everyone here is a crossdresser. But, then when you walk through a shopping mall, or park, and see the youngsters (teenage boys) in their skinny jeans or even leggings that are clearly from the "girls" section, you realise that clothing options are as fluid as gender identity. They may buy their clothes from the other side of the aisle, but they don't consider it crossdressing; merely an expression of their individuality or conformity, depending upon whether or not their friends share or not similar clothing choices.

The term is arbitrary and I'll treat it as such.

[Gusto10]

You don't have to go the full Monty with make-up, wig &c. to crossdress. The wearing of pumps, tights, femm skirt or dress &c. IS crossdressing. Period.

Tom.

I just wonder whether an individual's definition is influenced by environmental or social factors, such as local acceptance?

None of the items are "female" per se, but in combination?

I have nobody telling me I must not, should not, cannot, wear a skirt now, yet I no longer wear anything that would raise an eyebrow. I am "total man", but for the ponytail, in presentation as I walk down the street, having retreated to the closet as a skirt wearer. I would not, however, consider any man wearing everything from the "ladieswear" aisles to be a crossdresser unless they were to be presenting en-femme, simply because it is a term that never applies to women. That is not to say that sometimes, when I find a picture of a man "women's" clothing, my initial reaction is jarred by the image. I'll admit that when (say) Kilted John first posted some of his pictures my initial thought was "no, that doesn't work"; but I've become conditioned to his style and there is no mistake that he's a man and an individual. His style would not be my style, but he positively rocks.

Moonshadow's latest picture is a bit of a departure from what we usually see from him. It probably looks more "femme" than usual simply because of conditioning. JeffB always looks impeccable, head to toe, yet there is no mistaking him as a man.

To tell the truth, though, some of the "poses" for the pictures here (and I would include some of my own pictures, not posted on this site, as well as yours) look more "femme", even (dare I say) "gay", to my mind than the overall outfit. The poses themselves are more jarring than the clothes. Why? Conditioning, pure and simple.

To some extent, according to western societal norms, everyone here is a crossdresser. But, then when you walk through a shopping mall, or park, and see the youngsters (teenage boys) in their skinny jeans or even leggings that are clearly from the "girls" section, you realise that clothing options are as fluid as gender identity. They may buy their clothes from the other side of the aisle, but they don't consider it crossdressing; merely an expression of their individuality or conformity, depending upon whether or not their friends share or not similar clothing choices.

The term is arbitrary and I'll treat it as such.

eventhough the discussion is becoming rather off-topic, one sugegstion: redefine crossderessing as cross-the-aile-dressing. Still the question why such gives us men such a negative connotation whilst women tend to get away with it without a blinck of the eye