Say in the interest of safety (given our trans phobic society) maybe it should be reserved for those who can absolutely be stealth?
Like a passing privilege?
To clarify, say I look like a guy wearing a skirt. A hetero guy would see this and the clocking would follow, "He's a guy dressed salaciously because obviously he wants to be penetrated. Only women wear skirts but he's not a woman. He's trying to seduce men." (anger follows)
Conversely, say I look like a guy wearing women's pants. A hetero guy would see this and the clocking would follow, "He's a guy dressed as a woman, but he's not being salacious or looking to be penetrated. He doesn't seem to be trying to seduce men." (laugh and a shrug)
Can there be no other way to read this?
Now I'm lesbian, I have no interest in seducing men or being penetrated. So unless I know with certainty I can be stealth, I personally would stick with wearing women's pants/jeans instead.
Just throwing this out there to nibble on. Thoughts?
I am going to leave this start and see where it goes.
(((((((triggering post warning )))))))
I like skirts and dresses and Im a lesbian too
Its not my fault guys cant control their sexual urges
Let them think what they want...
dress however you like
It's not about men's sexual urges, it's about the possibility of being too salacious for our own safety given what we are 'communicating' to others with what we are wearing. ;D
Um... Not all skirts are "salacious." When I go out en femme I wear nice conservative skirts. The shortest one I will consider being seen in is my black leather one that goes just below the knee. The others that feel comfortable to me go down to mid-ankle. Now if one were to wear a skirt that stopped about half way up their bippy I can see how some would take that as a sexual come on. One does have to dress their age - or at least in a reasonable manner.
Erin
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 07:18:52 AM
It's not about men's sexual urges, it's about the possibility of being too salacious for our own safety given what we are 'communicating' to others with what we are wearing. ;D
If wearing skirts etc means that Im not safe then I can only blame men and their sexual urges...
Also wearing pants doesnt really make you any safer...
I think a hetero man, who reads the other person who's wearing a skirt as also being a man, is hardly thinking about his sexual urges.
He's probably thinking with more aggressive parts of his brain...
sorry, I love to wear skirts and especially dresses. l don't know how much of a man In a dress I look, but I'm definitely not letting a Neanderthal determine my mental well being.
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 07:08:33 AM
Say in the interest of safety (given our trans phobic society) maybe it should be reserved for those who can absolutely be stealth?
No.
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 07:08:33 AM
Now I'm lesbian, I have no interest in seducing men or being penetrated. So unless I know with certainty I can be stealth, I personally would stick with wearing women's pants/jeans instead.
Fine. Let others dictate what you wear, that is your right. Me, I wear what makes ME feel good. If other people do not like my clothes then they can express an opinion and tell me so but that does not confer any right on them to act violently towards me.
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 07:08:33 AMJust throwing this out there to nibble on. Thoughts?
Yes, but I would be moderated or yelled at.....
I do feel it's an interesting position to take. Almost to say, at what point was someone asking for it..? When it's worded like that, I start to feel uneasy..
Fwiw, I plan on wearing skirts and dresses often and soon. Pass or not, I want to feel pretty, and those things help ^_^
I'm loving this brain food *nibbles*
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 07:18:52 AM
It's not about men's sexual urges, it's about the possibility of being too salacious for our own safety given what we are 'communicating' to others with what we are wearing. ;D
This statement perpetuates a notion, that women (and trans women) are at fault for sexual violence committed by others solely due to how they dress. And no, I don't agree with the premise either. I don't think a skirt says "penetrate me" at all.
I'd wear a skirt if I thought I'd look half-assed good in one and wouldn't give a rip about what anyone else had going on in the dark recess of their mind. The most important thing for everyone here is to get a handle on the fact that what other's think has absolutely nothing to do with who you are and it's imperative to your own mental well being and self esteem to put those concerns out of your mind and be who you are. Five minutes from now what someone else thinks about you will have absolutely no bearing on your life. If one feels that what they are wearing is a little risqué for the time and place, then don't go there at that hour dressed inappropriately. Most of the time skirts are completely appropriate!
Quote from: aaggat on August 18, 2014, 08:05:13 AM
Yes, but I would be moderated or yelled at.....
What she said.
Rosie
I know quite a few non-passing trans folk, and others like me that pass some of the time but are not in stealth.
We all wear whatever we please. We tend not to get any more unwanted attention than any other women do.
If you're not comfortable wearing a skirt, don't. But that doesn't mean none of us should.
I would like to be able to wear a skirt or dress or other feminine clothes.
I suppose that wearing a 14" skirt over a thong while playing pool with a bunch of Neanderthals might give a few that idea, but then again who would do something that stupid anyway? :D >:-)
Ok ladies peace! :icon_peace:
A properly styled / fitted skirt that compliments your body shape is like any other piece of clothing that can help you pass.
The thing is to look out for is tight skirts... If you don't have much in the hip region they tend to slim/flatten out the waist/hip. Same goes for cis women!
Just the other day I wore a denim skirt and an empire style shirt that came down about half way over the skirt. It's probably one of the cutest outfits I own ;)
I think one good mid length pencil cut denim skirt is usually a healthy part of wardrobe... Mine is my favorite item in my whole wardrobe... And about the idea of skirts being salacious... they are often more conservative than most modern jeans, and certainly more than many short shorts... Dont see this as an issue any more for me than it is for any other woman to be honest...
Look up the protest march "slut walk".
If someone is going to attack someone else they will use any excuse to shift the blame onto the victim. A man that rapes a woman saying that they wore a short skirt still would have raped the woman if she were in blue jeans. Society in North America is constantly blaming the victims for being attacked, this has to end. What you wear isn't the reason that you have to fear attacks, it is the sick and twisted minds of people who think they have the right to do so.
Rape is rape, not matter what the victim is wearing. Skirts don't cause rape, and a man who rapes a woman wearing a skirt would have done the same with one who wears a burka. Nothing the victim does could justify the violence inflicted on her. We'd imagine conventionally more attractive women probably get raped more, would it be their fault, because they are attractive? I can imagine now a campaign whose goal is to stop women from trying to look good, make them as unattractive as they can, so they could avoid rape. But we know it'd be absurd because it wouldn't avoid rape at all. In fact, probably rape would increase because somehow society views rape as acceptable if the victim doesn't conform to norms regarding what she can wear and how she should present and doesn't hold the attacker accountable. So we can see just how ridiculous is to put the blame on victim.
To answer your question, I don't think you should be too concerned with what others think you should wear. Wear what makes you feel comfortable and happy in your skin. If your goal is to attract as less attention as possible because you feel you are not quite there yet, then maybe avoid skirts. But don't let others dictate what you should wear. Not in all circunstances at least. Work is obvious and understandable. But casual, wear how you want.
What White Rabbit said.
That being said:
The history of feminine aesthetics is closely related to the idea of fertility. You will find that incredibly often you are going to see imagery in fashion that is, if not explicitly, implicitly tied to sexual contact. That is after all usually the underlying theme of fashion, especially among teenagers (both male and female) eg: "we're young, let's have sex". It just so happens that in the dominant culture, which is heterosexual, the way that you have sex is by one person penetrating the other, and it's the male penetrating the female, so we end up with all of this iconography in female clothing which presents the female as a walking vagina, and the male as a walking dick. ;)
The problem is when we mistake that iconography for consent or invitation. It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to wear clothing which is symbolically linked to sex without the expectation that she therefore is telling every man that she wishes to be immediately penetrated. This is the kind of bull->-bleeped-<- thinking that leads to women in the middle east not being able to show any portion of their skin in public because it might make men want to have sex with them.
There is something to be said for time and place, for example I don't think it makes sense from a utilitarian perspective to wear sexy lingerie to the office, but even showing up naked would not justify being raped.
Another note, which I should include, some feminists avoid wearing skirts because historically at one point in time the skirt was developed to make it as easy as possible for a male to casually have sex with his woman which was seen at the time as his property. I can understand this, but I disagree with those of them who think that a historical use of a garment tarnishes all future uses of that garment.
Also, most rape is planned way beforehand. It is not impulsive at all. In fact, I'll quote this:
"Myth: Rape is an impulsive crime. It is an act of sexual gratification.
Fact: 90% of group rapes are planned. 58% of single rapes are planned. 75% of all rapes are planned. Practically every word of this myth can be converted by facts. Impulsive, controllable; as seen above, a majority of rapes are planned. Also, one important emotional payoff for the rapist is to be in control, not out of control. The primary motive displayed by most convicted rapist is aggression, dominance, and anger, NOT sex. Sex is used as a weapon to inflict violence, humiliation, and conquest on a victim."
So it has nothing to do with clothing at all. And even if it had, that wouldn't make the attack excusable.
Quote from: Annabella on August 18, 2014, 12:31:31 PM
What White Rabbit said.
That being said:
The history of feminine aesthetics is closely related to the idea of fertility. You will find that incredibly often you are going to see imagery in fashion that is, if not explicitly, implicitly tied to sexual contact. That is after all usually the underlying theme of fashion, especially among teenagers (both male and female) eg: "we're young, let's have sex". It just so happens that in the dominant culture, which is heterosexual, the way that you have sex is by one person penetrating the other, and it's the male penetrating the female, so we end up with all of this iconography in female clothing which presents the female as a walking vagina, and the male as a walking dick. ;)
The problem is when we mistake that iconography for consent or invitation. It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to wear clothing which is symbolically linked to sex without the expectation that she therefore is telling every man that she wishes to be immediately penetrated. This is the kind of bull->-bleeped-<- thinking that leads to women in the middle east not being able to show any portion of their skin in public because it might make men want to have sex with them.
There is something to be said for time and place, for example I don't think it makes sense from a utilitarian perspective to wear sexy lingerie to the office, but even showing up naked would not justify being raped.
Another note, which I should include, some feminists avoid wearing skirts because historically at one point in time the skirt was developed to make it as easy as possible for a male to casually have sex with his woman which was seen at the time as his property. I can understand this, but I disagree with those of them who think that a historical use of a garment tarnishes all future uses of that garment.
Excellent points here. I would add that the other side of this is to consider the history of imagery of cis males in unbifurcated garments and how this imagery has been used and modified over time in a variety of media. There are numerous examples of such garments, worn for the most part and at times wholly exclusively by males, that not simply do not imply a desire for "penetration" but that are meant to affirm stereotypical ideas about men who penetrate (rather than the opposite), and about masculinity in general. Kilts and unbifurcated Japanese hakama are hardly garments meant to imply "femininity" in the wearers thereof; the bifurcated hakama is, according to one line of reasoning, made to resemble an unbifurcated garment so as to aid in confusing an opponent's eyes during a battle. Common contemporary justifications for men wearing modern kilts, like the Utilikilt, are that such garments are not only more comfortable to wear for male-bodied individuals if said individuals wear them without underwear (which is generally true) but that going commando aids in (to paraphrase many a review of these kilts) both getting women and having sex with them without undressing. Such garments, then, become associated with stereotypical masculine attributes, like war and sexual prowess, rather than being associated with the man in question inviting penetration, which would--to re-engage with stereotypes--negate or diminish those masculine attributes.
And, of course, there is the long list of garments that men have worn in a plethora of cultures and times that are indistinguishable from skirts--pareos, lungis, sarongs, etc. Even robes are simply a form of dress, or vice versa.
But, at the same time, these garments, to be associated with "masculinity," are almost always referred to by names other than "skirts" (and never, to my knowledge, as dresses, when long skirted garments appear, like the Saudi thobe). The word "skirt" does occasionally appear connected specifically to men, as in the Christian bible, but this seems to be far from the norm after a certain point in history. And perhaps this is the point: the very word "skirt" impies a "femininity" that stereotypical men seem to find undesirable at best and repulsive at worst, to the extent that garments that are unquestionably forms of skirts cannot be referred to as such. Beyond this, there is the common depiction in western media of evil characters wearing skirted garments (like, to use the example of a children's film, Jafar in Disney's Aladdin) while the other characters do not; these characters, who often embrace other negative and absurd stereotypes of femininity (sneakiness, deceptiveness, etc.), seem to be associated with evil in part because they are closer to these negative stereotypes of women. Their skirted garment reinforces their evil. This is not always the case, but there are certainly many examples where something like this operates, perhaps subconsciously reinforcing in viewers these negative stereotypes.
Beyond all this, no attack or thought should be justifiable on someone based on what they are wearing. Moreover, to think a man (more accurately, someone gendered as male) wearing a skirt wants to be penetrated simply reinforces, aside from all else, the negative notions that cross-dressers are gay (which is statistically untrue, but this notion persists) and that cross-dressing should be sexualised or associated with sexuality. The mere fact that these stereotypes may exist is no reason to perpetuate them. My Romani friend often reminds me how many people still think the Roma people, the gypsies, are all thieves and child-kidnappers, which is false; the mere existence of this stereotype does not imply its rightness or that it should be perpetuated.
I am currently working through volunteer training at our women's resource center "The Harbor" and learning more about intimate partner violence, abuse and rape. This training and understanding how often women are assaulted, abused and raped (1 in 3) is sobering and calls us to be advocates for ourselves and our sisters. I once encouraged my own daughter to consider what "message" her attire might be giving to men. I should have spent more time encouraging my son to understand his responsibility for his behavior.
As Auroramarianna and others have clearly stated rape is a crime of power and control. We own our body no matter what we wear. Attempts to blame the victims and survivors are long standing, misdirected, wrong and harmful.
Two years into transition I have already dealt with two unwelcome incidents of people touching me. It didn't matter what I was wearing or wether or not I was passing. Violence toward trans people is again not about sex it is about using coercion and crime to control others. Lets not go there thinking I wore the wrong skirt.
Prior to allowing the perceived outcome from this hypothetical determine how one was to dress, I think it is important to determine one thing.
And that determination should be directed to the psychological state of the individual expressing those thoughts on how to assess this "woman" Having determined that and equating the result into a risk element of potential aggression; complete with the understanding that ornithological species of like plumage co-habitate, then one can safely determine their dress code based on their geographical movements for a proposed period of time; I guess.
Think about it
Huggs
Catherine
Evelyn, seriously... most of Your posts made me smile, but this one was... Skirts implying penetration...???
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.lostateminor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2Fwtf_poster1.jpeg&hash=cc9a6ba9804aaebdc254e2c21a20e93d4bd80455)
Quote from: Tessa James on August 18, 2014, 01:37:45 PM
Violence toward trans people is again not about sex it is about using coercion and crime to control others. Lets not go there thinking I wore the wrong skirt.
So true! But let's go there using some sense about what's appropriate for time and place lest we have to piss, moan and lament about how some jerks felt empowered making nasty remarks at our expense. Then again it takes engaging the common sense button if we have one, unfortunately not everyone does.
so instead of a skirt how about skinny jeans with zipper down the ass for easy access
I freakin' love flared skirts and long tunics. I always wear stockings or hose and have a greater affinity for women's boxers.
This topic can be viewed by some as very offensive by suggesting that dress constitutes a certain preference by the individual wearing them. I see no valid reason this topic was posted in the first place. This topic will be locked however if it degrades into a topic of rape and those in certain attire deserve it.
Tread very lightly on this one.
Yeah. Hey folks, no inference to rape intended. Not sure why it went in this direction.
The original question relates to wearing an overtly feminine article of clothing that exposes your legs and the sexual connotations that surrounds it (at least in most western cultures, especially with heels). If this connotation in the presentation of a non passing transwoman might infer or cause so much CIS male transphobic aggression.
Also, I agree that we should be free to wear whatever we want.
mod/edit racial banter.
Quote from: Evelyn K on August 18, 2014, 02:42:22 PM
Yeah. Hey folks, no inference to rape intended. Not sure why it went in this direction.
The original question relates to wearing an overtly feminine article of clothing that exposes your legs and the sexual connotations that surrounds it (at least in most western cultures, especially with heels). If this connotation in the presentation of a non passing transwoman might infer or cause so much CIS male transphobic aggression.
Also, I agree that we should be free to wear whatever we want.
As i said on the second post and Jennifer. I locked this tread do to no more value can be gained.
I was surprised that the thread started on a mature note but then turned into something less of value.
Then the last racial hate reference sealed the deal. (i removed)