Women can wear any type of skirt, any type of pants---it doesn't bother you. You are bothered by any skirt on a man other than a kilt. Why? Simple---your environment has told you to have no concern over what women wear; it has told you to be VERY worried about what a man wears---you're sure a reserve member of the gender police. You say kilts are ok because that specific style is to a degree part of your mentality. It's NEW things to your consciousness you take as a threat, because social change you see as menacing! But if you forbid innovation, you forbid liberty. The kilt was at some time an innovation, not a tradition. Lighten up on your awful restrictive view of what a man can wear---we're human also. Any type of skirt is acceptable if the individual chooses it. Men's civil rights are not different from those of women---including what they wear. The guy in the skirt isn't wearing a kilt and needs no approval from the overbearing, totally obnoxious "kilt only" FACTION!
Depends on the appearance of the guy. Example : My father would look bad in a a skirt. My best friend Robbie S. could pull it off. They have very different personalities and look way different.
Did you think I was being rude or something? Sorry if I came off that way. My friend Robbie S. shaves his legs too. We bought booty shorts together and wear them all over the place. I have seen other men wear skirts before and there is nothing wrong with it. People should be able to wear whatever they want. :)
I'm not cool. My friend gets me to do all this stuff. He's the cool one. He grabbed me and somehow actually got me to dance with him. His been trying to get me to go to a club called the Twist.
If he were Scottish and in his kilt, absolutely nothing. If any other man wore a skirt, I'd cross the road in order not to get close---------- in some places, you can be arrested for laughing too loud!
"The wearing of trousers by women would be an INTOLERABLE SHOCK to the public nerves."---New York Times, October 31, 1881, page 6
“Their conduct is certainly VERY ODD. Any Dress Reformer can order a pair of trousers and put them on in the privacy of her own room---PROVIDED THERE ARE NO YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE ADDICTED TO FITS IN CASE OF SUDDEN FRIGHT.”---Editorial, “A Deep Laid Conspiracy,” New York Times, September 5, 1876, page 5 “Whenever a woman announces she is a dress reformer, she is understood to imply that SHE IS DETERMINED TO WEAR TROUSERS, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES MAY BE, and putting on trousers, with all that the term implies. Has she a right to seek her own comfort, even her own welfare, AT THE COST OF GIVING PAIN TO OTHERS?”---New York Times, March 12, 1878, page 4
In June 1943 Chicago police arrested Evelyn Bross for wearing pants ("clothes belonging to the opposite sex") a judge ordered her to see a psychiatrist for six months. Yeah, you're an UNJUST person! And EXTREMELY SEXIST against men! We men in skirts do NOT give a flip if women like you burst into a fireball like a Buddhist monk!
If done nicely, it's awesome.
“Their conduct is certainly VERY ODD. Any Dress Reformer can order a pair of trousers and put them on in the privacy of her own room---PROVIDED THERE ARE NO YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE ADDICTED TO FITS IN CASE OF SUDDEN FRIGHT.”---Editorial, “A Deep Laid Conspiracy,” New York Times, September 5, 1876, page 5
“Whenever a woman announces she is a dress reformer, she is understood to imply that SHE IS DETERMINED TO WEAR TROUSERS, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES MAY BE, and putting on trousers, with all that the term implies. Has she a right to seek her own comfort, even her own welfare, AT THE COST OF GIVING PAIN TO OTHERS?”---New York Times, March 12, 1878, page 4
In June 1943 Chicago police arrested Evelyn Bross for wearing pants ("clothes belonging to the opposite sex") a judge ordered her to see a psychiatrist for six months. Yeah, you're an UNJUST person! And EXTREMELY SEXIST against men! We men in skirts do NOT give a flip if women like you burst into a fireball like a Buddhist monk!