Instances of men wearing skirts in non-traditional regions is nothing new, but now the world is starting to take notice. Continue reading “News Media Coverage of Skirted Men”
Words do not adequately describe the comfort of a skirt in the sweltering summer months. While comfort is an enormous justification for donning a business-acceptable skirt, it is not its only benefit nor the only reason, as I have pointed out in other posts.
The actual number of men worldwide who wear skirt-like garments is unknowable, but a reasonable estimate would be between 500 million and 1 billion, which, out of a world population of 4 billion men, is a rather significant percentage. Their garments are known by many names across the globe: kilt, gho, fustanella, hakama, sarong, dhoti/veshti/lungi, longyi, kanga/kilenge/kikoy/tappa, lavalava, baana/chola, ihram, futah, sulu vakataga, qun/chang, qumbaz, and thobe.
It is worth noting that, next to the loincloth, non-bifurcated garnents are the second oldest articles of clothing. But the bifurcated pant is also fairly ancient as shown by native Amerindian peoples. Some anthropologists have suggested that bifurcation is attributable to textile technology. Under this theory, textile cultures adopted non-bifurcated garments while animal hide cultures adopted what we know call pants. For purposes of this blog post, I will use “skirt” to refer to all non-bifurcated garments regardless of gender much in the same way that “pants” refers to bifurcated garments worn by both males and females.
This post is aimed at providing curious and novice American men with the advantage of practical advice and a basic education on how to start wearing skirts. While I strive to be practical and balanced, I do advance a viewpoint of masculine aesthetics for several reasons: first, it is my personal stylistic preference; second, I believe this to be the most natural tract for men making their first forays into this counterculture movement; third, I believe this to be of greater service to the movement (as explained in closing). To make it easier to digest, I have divided this post into four sections: Key Concepts, Masculinity & Femininity, Wearing a Skirt, Shopping for Skirts, and Closing Remarks.
So I was just pondering the statement that “straight” people don’t choose to be straight. Of course, the über-religious will say that’s because it’s the natural order of things…the way we’re created. But if someone is physiochemically wired a certain way, doesn’t that imply that God either makes mistakes or that God is a watchmaker rather than a timepiece? To avoid that theological quagmire, they equate homosexuality with sin and since sin necessarily depends on choice, sexual orientation must therefore be a choice as well. It seems to me that the blindly religious are spending way more energy trying to avoid the theological heavy lifting than it would take to just sit patiently and meditatively for understanding to come. Theophilosophy shouldn’t weaken one’s faith; it should strengthen and deepen it. As an axiom, a sovereign deity cannot err and all people must have the same free will. So shouldn’t it be the case that if heteros don’t choose to be hetero, homos don’t choose to be homo?