A man need not be “trans” or “metro” to want to present his most attractive self to the world. After all, men shave (or shape) their facial hair and style their hair in a manner that they see as enhancing their aesthetic. I do not want suggest that all men wear full-on cosmetics, but having some knowhow in a back pocket and some basic tools in a gearbag can really prove useful! After all, ho hasn’t had a important photo scheduled or a really big date planned or a really big presentation prepared only to see a giant pimple, an ingrown hair, or a boneheaded razor nick in the bathroom mirror?Continue Reading
It occurs to me today that Americans do have a Constitutional right to be “weird” by virtue of the First Amendment’s freedom of expression.Continue Reading
The Wall Street Journal has this interesting piece on the historical legacy of men’s nightshirts, and their suppression due to evolved Western gender constructs.: Why Some Men Favor Nightshirts Over Pajamas.
Cristen Conger explains everything.
If an employer specifies distinct garments for males and for females, and if a “male” employee wears a garment classified for the opposite gender, then by definition that male is due to be construed as a member of the other gender. The dress code thus self-proves the validity of his attire.Continue Reading
As noted in another post, sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is typically seen as a binary trait that flows from reproductive function whether that be regarded as genital, chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, or structural. There are, of course, biologically intersex persons born with karyotype disorders, androgen insensitivity disorders, and/or genital dysgenesis disorders. According to the U.N. World Health Organization, as much as 1% to 2% of persons are born intersex worldwide. Gender, however, is more complex and is not a monolithic construct.Continue Reading
A few months after the “double standards” occurrence, I was again at the same club and speaking with two ladies. Something in the conversation prompted a third to disclose that she was municipal police (and although the club was not in that city, municipal police in this state have extended jurisdiction for the entire county in which the city partially lies, which did include the county of this particular club). No fan of cops (and definitely not white cops), I excused myself from the conversation and went on my way. Over the course of the eveningContinue Reading
This is a truly unisex backcountry skirt and while propounded for the female consumer, the video casually features males as well and does so without making a big deal of it.
Men do not casually call women cunts. Yes, men might casually refer to them as bitch or ho, but cunt is neither casually bantered nor indiscriminately hurled. Indeed, cunt is reserved for extraordinary cases and when it is used, it is (probably) well deserved (either on general principle or for specific conduct demonstrated at or near the moment of invocation). But why is cunt so horrifying? Perhaps it is that cunt is the ultimate reductive objectification . . . meaning that the denigrated female has absolutely no value apart from her vagina *or* that she so lacks social and intellectual value that she is equal to a whore or prostitute. Yes, in this light cunt would seem unbelievably harsh, but as far as reductive objectifications go, why is cunt so taboo while dickhead, prick, and asshole are not?
Age-defiance vanity is underrated. Vox
Just because women normally do (or don’t do) a-b-c and just beause men generally do (or don’t do) d-e-f does not mean non-conformity is inherently improper. After all, most people eat whatever they wish, but then there are vegetarians…..
I don’t have a basis to evaluate the academic credibility of Science News, but the takeaway is that Trousers seem to have originated with asian horsemen.
Humans are not covered in downy feathers, they are not yellow or mottled, and they, usually, do not chirp. Obviously, no one would confuse a human with an adorable baby bird so how did chick come to refer to female humans?Continue Reading
For many decades of the twentieth century, American physicians both recommended and presumed consent for routine infant circumcision. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics sharply revised its policy position in 1999 to hold that circumcision was strictly a cultural and/or religious consideration with no medical bias for or against. A decade later, the AAP again revised its policy position in 2012 citing two medical benefits—reduced risk of UTIs for the first year of life and reduced risk of STIs later in adulthood. (There may also be an indirect reduction in risk of penile cancer due to a reduced risk of HPV, but there is now a male HPV vaccine). However, the data only showed that the statistical benefit was greater than the statistical risk of the procedure. Therefore, infant circumcision was categorized as an acceptable medical procedure, but the data were not strong enough to medically recommend the procedure.Continue Reading
Why I wear skirts has everything to do with equality. It started one roastingly hot July day in 2016 and I haven’t looked back since. Sure, I see the curiosity in others’ eyes and on their faces, but it surprises me how few people are direct enough to ask about it. This is, after all, the deep south far from international megatropolises like Miami, Los Angeles, and New York where cultural anomalies might be more commonplace. Perhaps southerners just want to avoid the appearance of rudeness. Even so, a few days ago a local librarian lamented that I had not blogged my experience and this led me to think that just maybe the public at large might be interested in my personal reasons and my social message.Continue Reading
Instances of men wearing skirts in non-traditional regions is nothing new, but now the world is starting to take notice.Continue Reading
Gender expression is essentially the outward manifestation of a person’s gender psyche. Gender expression could also be equally described as the outward presentation of how a person wishes his/her gender to be perceives. In this light, at least, it is worth observing that presentation is characterized as much by what isn’t as what is. So the opposite of ‘masculine’ is not axiomatically ‘feminine’ but rather that which is simply anti-masculine. (And of course the inverse is true of the opposite of ‘feminine’.) So to represent that one is not [fully] masculine, it is necessary only to deconstruct the cultural aesthetic of ‘masculine’ of ‘feminine’ and this can be achieved by blending elements of both aesthetics in an unexpected, highly individualistic manner. This is the crux of what it means to be non-binary. The man who deconstructs the masculine aesthetic is not automatically pursuing the feminine aesthetic or declaring gayneas any more than the woman who deconstructs the feminine aesthetic seeks to attain the masculine aesthetic. Either is simply a representation of the gender psyche.
An interesting morsel, in its original Brazilian Portuguese, or in English, via Google Translate.
Without judging the writer, let me say that am a little baffled by this opinion piece that I stumbled upon just now. Perhaps it is simply that, being neither ciswoman nor transwoman, I am unable to relate to the argument of “Lesbians need to get the L out of the LGBT+ community.” That said, I think the author is defending a ciswoman’s right to be exclusively attracted to ciswomen. Taking the role of spokesperson for like-minded lesbians, she complains of pressure form gay and/or transgender community to consider transwomen as romantic candidates. With the caveat that no one has a right dismissively label another person’s opinion, I find myself in conflicting (dis)agreement. Continue Reading
The 1-A aired a segment today on NPR titled “Designing Our World: Clothing Without The Gender Binary.” A transcript does not appear to be available, but the 30-minute segment can be streamed from the 1-A website.
According to the Genesis (chapter 2) account in which Eve was “extracted” from Adam, that means Adam was the biological sum of man and woman. So Adam became man simultaneously with Eve becoming woman. Man and woman were thus created simultaneously, not sequentially. Man is not preeminent over woman.
Very few people know it, but high-heeled footwear actually began among European men. Women then emulated the style, daintifying it in the process. in time, the fashion fell out of favor (perhaps for practicality) among men which leaves society with the mistaken belief that high-heeled shoes are uniquely feminine. Cowboy boots are “high-heels,” as Jill Maurer points out. Continue Reading
According to The Atlantic, “gender-neutral clothing is back in vogue, but the craze in many ways has mirrored broader social changes throughout the 20th century.”
In the not too distant past, European aristocratic males wore both skirt-like garments as well as high heels. (In fact, women adopted high heels from European men and made them daintily and femininely narrower.) Over time, though, the European and American industrial revolutions made bifurcated pants and flat shoes more utilitarian for daily life. Women, however, who were relegated to lives of domesticity continued with the less practical fashion. But there has always been a double standardContinue Reading
I love that this piece about Sebastiaan Vermeulen appears in a gender-targeted venue with a largely heteronormative readership. Philip Ellis and Sebastiaan Vermeulen sublimely and succinctly lay it out for the reader: “In the end, it’s the same you, just a different piece of fabric.”
Before the women’s liberation movement, skirts were just what women wore. In post-liberation America, skirts became something that accentuated the female identity rather than just aligning with the identity. With Queen Victoria’s prudishness far in the rearview mirror, hemlines rose and skirts no longer merely accentuated gender, but became a means of summoning attention once society finally admitted the legitimacy of a woman’s sexual self. Would it be unreasonable to think that males therefore came to cognitively associate skirts with exaggerated femininity? After all, that seems to be the only time most men take notice of how women dress—when the skirt is styled to stand out or the pants are tight or the shorts are extra short. In other words, males fail to notice (or the brain fails to imprint) when women wear anything “ordinary” that does not compel attention. That leaves only the out-of-ordinary to be noticed. And if it is out of the ordinary for a man to skirt, that gets noticed. Could it be as simple as men failing to notice the aesthetic range of women’s skirts, noticing only when women wear certain skirts and therewith construe all skirts as a purposeful intent to assert femininity?
Some time back I came across this image and I later scolded myself for not saving it. Then as serendipity would have it, I found it again. Continue Reading
The outside temperature reached 103° F one recent July afternoon in south Georgia. I once experienced even hotter temperatures in Spain a decade ago, but the gulf humidity here is a beast of a different kind. I bounced to a thrift store in search of extensively used (i.e. breathable) medical scrubs. Little did I know that this simple mission would ignite a profound inquiry into gender equality.Continue Reading
As do countless citizens and corporations, I fundamentally disagreed with North Carolina’s 2016 legislation now known commonly as HB2. It was as much hateful as it was an egregious violation of federal law. I have pointed out in other posts that treating all females as frail victims incapable of defending themselves or speaking for themselves is supremely misogynistic just as it is supremely misandrist to presume all males to be menacing predators. In fact, I argue that the same mental processes which make a particular person (man or woman) a predator are the very same mental processes that make a comparable person a hero. You see, while a predator perceives a given set of circumstances as a potential victim to be exploited, a hero perceives those exact same circumstances as a potential victim in need of defense. And in this the old cartoons got it right! The hero and the villain wear identical hats and the color merely reflected the content of their character. Apart from these extremes, though, most males just go about their own business and their presence is neither good nor evil.Continue Reading
I was cogitating on the percrptive societal dissimilarities of sexuality while turning the use of “nymphomania” over in my head. The “nymphomania” label (to say nothing of “nympho”) carries an implicit connotation of abnormality and even a subtext of whoredom that is not commensurately accorded to males (the implication being that males are whorish dogs whose sexuality is valueless while the sexuality of women is valuable). There is so, so much to unpack here, but for now I want to mention a particularly interesting preliminary finding. It turns out that there is a male analogue called “satyriasis.” That said, the fact that no one ever hears this word is itself a statement on society’s dissimilar treatment of female and male sexuality.
Sex and gender are not the same things. Biological sex is defined by anatomy and genetics. Gender, however, refers to the manifestation of that physiological sex. A person whose biological sex and manifested gender are congruent are termed cisgender. A person whose biological sex and manifested gender are incongruent may be (over broadly) considered transgender, but that does not necessarily mean such person intends to undergo medical sex reassignment or that such person intends to live as a different sex. More appropriately being “trans” simply means that the person transcends binary gender much in the way that D-block elements on the periodic table are called transitional elements because those elements have both metallic and nonmetallic properties. Such transmetals can appear to be metals in one context but nonmetals in another context.
Gender does influence sexuality but gender is not determinative of sexuality. In actuality, there are three components at work: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sexual Orientation.Continue Reading
Words do not adequately describe a skirted man’s enhanced comfort in the sweltering summer months. While comfort is an enormous justification for donning a work-appropriate skirt, comfort is neither the sole benefit nor the sole justification, as I have pointed out in “Why I Wear Skirts” and other posts about men and skirts. Skirts need not be frilly, froufrou, or feminine, and skirts can indeed be very masculine if a person first understands the basic design characteristics and uses this knowledge to make some sensible selections.Continue Reading
People probably know of “misogyny,” but what about “misandry”? This Psychology Today article explains.
The social acceptability of men wearing skirts is by no means a nascent subject, but has has anything really changed since the Industrial Revolution? In 1984, the New York Times ran this piece regarding a Paris fashion show featuring men in skirts that was, according to French designer David Hechter, “the most important thing to happen in fashion in the past 20 years!” Hechter was one of the first designers to break fashion norms previously “when it was scandal for women to wear pants.” Rodney Martin puts a sharper point on it: “It makes me feel free. It’s a statement by which I can say I am free to do whatever I want. It does cause hostility on the streets, though. Sometimes I keep my coat closed over my skirt so no one will see it. And I do have to sit differently. But it’s not about being a woman.”Continue Reading
Right now I’m on a train headed to Toronto, writes Travis Martin, and I will be on another train coming back, late tomorrow evening. I’ll be participating in a photoshoot at Ryerson University as part of a research project on men’s fashion. The focus of the study is men of my generation who are using fashion to express themselves, and changing what “masculinity” means in the process. I am expressing myself right now, with my fashion. It feels awesome, empowering, and…. Continue reading How (and why) to Wear a Skirt (as a man)
Cristen Conger explains everything.
The old cartoons with the heroes in white hats and villains in black hats were pretty much right on the money. Heroes and villains can dress alike, look alike, and even act alike and if not careful, the hero can be lumped in together with the villain. Continue Reading
I once experienced a freak Saharan heatwave with highs over 40° C while studying in Madrid. It was a dry heat, though, and very different from one recent 103° F July afternoon in south Georgia. I bounced to a thrift store in search of some well-worn (breathable) medical scrubs and that’s when I saw it: the plain, charred olive A-line mini. It struck me as the ultimate heatbuster and looked so sensible and professional that it triggered a brief flashback to my days in the corporate offices of a large regional bank and I wondered, as progressive as the bank was, if I would have been permitted to elect its female dress code. On second thought, I have no desire to cross-dress, but shouldn’t gender equality give men the option to wear skirts just as it gave women the option to wear pants many decades ago? As counterintuitive as it might be, I suspect the bank would have been much more cerebral than most universities in contemplating such questions. This being a summer break, I decided to test the waters and having donned various skirts for three weeks now, I reflect upon deeply disconcerting truths.Continue Reading
I found myself in a brief conversation today about gender roles. Specifically, the topic was equitable division of labor in the family, that is, where one spouse or partner is the career breadwinner and the other is the homemaker. All available indicators point to the thriving gender bias that men are expected to be breadwinners and women, the homemakers. But this tacit social norm is simultaneously misandrist and misogynist. Continue Reading
This blurb is hardly long enough to draw reliable conclusions, but it is food for thought: Dresses for men really do help keep things cool in the summer heat
Bravo has a cutting new series titled In a Man’s World. Women from various walks of life receive full-body muscle suits, and craniofacial prosthetics to create a physique that is out of this world. The women also receive vocal and movement coaching and then simulate their regular selves….as a man. The circumstances and settings are a bit artificial (after all, some explanation has to be offered for the presence of video cameras) but some balance is achieved with additional hidden cameras. What I find most interesting about the series, though, is the coaches’ observations of the subtle differences between men and women. Esco Jouléy’s keen insight into body movement is fascinating and empowering for skirted men wishing to amplify their masculine aura.
Separate areas with sofas, vanities, and even writing tables used to put the “rest” in women’s restrooms. Why were these spaces built, and why did they vanish? Read City Lab’s story titled The Glamorous, Sexist History of the Women’s Restroom Lounge
Part of the women’s liberation movement was inventing new vocabulary which enabled women to differentiate their agenda as the pursuit of equality and not emulation. Women sought to be treated equally as men (particularly in employment) but it was also clear that they were not to be regarded as men. Employment law shifted accordingly such that if trousers were acceptable attire for men, they must also be acceptable attire for women. And since men were not required to wear stockings or heels, neither could women. As I have pointed out in other posts, these cultural strides were not reciprocated for men. While it remained acceptable for women to wear sandals to the office, I have yet to read a single employee dress code that specifically extends such option to men. (Granted, no one wants to see most men’s feet, and most men lack fashion sensibility to select dignified sandals, but the same can be said for a number of women as well.)Continue Reading
Though it offers nothing not already contained in the research and publications of Univ. of Utah law professor Terry Kogan, Time magazine’s Why Do We Have Men’s and Women’s Bathrooms? is still a good, medium-length read.
In the not all to distant past, men wore unbifurcated garments and while few would want to dress like Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, it is not a novel concept that men should not be confined to trousers. Little by little, journalists, sociologists, and artists are looking into the history of skirted men and sharing their findings:
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?
Does anyone remember the WWJD wristbands from the 1990s? Jesus opposed all that the pharisees stood for, yet he welcomed them into his gatherings. If they were not among the attendees, how were they have been there to pose questions to him? They tried to compel his speech about paying taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:17, Mk 12:14, Lk 20:22). But what did Jesus do? He got creative and avoided the very words that the Pharisees expected put in his mouth. Whether it is baking a cake or designing a wedding website, can we not love these neighbors as ourselves? Should a Christian refuse to love her neighbors by withholding alms from homeless lesbians? Should the Christian who pulls off the road to assist stranded motorists drive away when he adduces them to be homosexually-wedded men? Not every Christian is sufficiently spiritually mature to implement what I propose here, but why can’t Christians design a wedding website or cake while engaging in genuine loving prayer for the customer-celebrants? And shouldn’t a Christian do that for every such customer, even the heterosexual ones? Indeed, can the designer not imprint a resonant verse like “God Is Love”? (1 John 4:8,16) Does that not avoid the issue, love our neighbor, and plant a highly memorable seed that the Holy Spirit can cultivate over time? Tragically, high profile battles like Creative, LLC, and Masterpiece Cake Shop only injure Christianity’s message. I’m relieved that SCOTUS preserved free speech protections, but I wish this case had never been brought.
I was just recalling an incident from several months ago at a local club (this event was still a few months before the time a female police reached under my skirt at this same club). I rocking an awesome 15″ Gap or Ralph Lauren chino skirt. I found myself speaking with a group of three or four females when one of them rather abruptly asks me, “what do you have on under your skirt?”Continue Reading
ME: I abstain from expressing opinions on abortion, but I live in [state] and [state] has no respect for the rule of law. That leaves it to orgs like ACLU to keep the asshats in check.Continue Reading
Cognitively-challenged Christians are eager to invoke Deuteronomy 22:5—in judgment of women as well as of men—that “woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD.” Some denominations read this as requiring women to wear dresses (or, in the contrapositive, as prohibiting women from wearing pants). Likewise, Deuteronomy 22:5 has been invoked to condemn and deny skirts as menswear. This was certainly my experience when I “saw the light” and “converted” to skirts in 2016, but it has taken me three years to get around to publishing this formal rebuttal.Continue Reading
USA Today reports that Target does not stand alone in its respect for non-cisgender persons. Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, and Hudson Bay (Sacks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor) all condone customer election of the facility that matches that customer’s gender identity. Sears (as well as its Kmart subsidiary) is not as outspoken, but condemns all forms of discrimination. Read the full print article here
And there is evidence that other companies agree. CBS affiliate KTVT reports that Ross Dress-For-Less and TJX (TJ Maxx, Marshall’s) also endorse facility election based on that customer’s gender identity. The station also reports that Walmart has no specific gender policy one way or the other. Read the full story here.
To be clear, this post is not about abortion but rather a sociocultural contradiction and hypocrisy revealed by the political lens of abortion. A few weeks ago I was struck by the irony that those who advocate “pro-choice” regarding women’s bodies fail to extend that philosophy to men’s bodies.Continue Reading
Perhaps it is just something peculiar to my neurodiverse brain (probably), but religious “modesty” practices are nonsensical. Why is an ankle-length skirt “modest”? Is an exposed calf that alluring? And why is such skirt a “modesty” when the presence of the ass is still known and the form of the breasts are still evident? The reality is that there is no universal anatomic feature that captivates every man. As is best known, there are “ass men” and “tits men” and yet this is absolutely too reductionist. Men are likewise captivated by –! more — crotches (not just by camel toe either), thigh gap, exotic hair, full lips, glam makeup, tight stomachs, elegant hands, stately shoulders, etc. If all sexuality were to be avoided then women would be reduced to wearing a burka and niqab, and that is as misogynist for its oppression as it is misandrist for its casting all men as mouth-breathing brutes. As so many endeavors of fallible humans, “modesty” expectations seem to be calibrated to behavior conformity rather than mentality, for as Scripture holds, man looks externally while God looks internally (1 Sam 16:7 “But the LORD said unto Samuel, “Look not on his face, or on his stature because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” “). Just as every body type is different (endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph triangle, inverted triangle, hourglass, pear, column, etc, etc), so too “modesty” must be different for every person, bodily as much as mentally and emotionally. And this goes for men too where it is not just his ass that appeals universally to all women, but also robust shoulders, broad back, powerful thighs, chiselled jaw, penetrating eyes, disarming dimples, hairless/hairy chest, etc, etc.
The modest person does not achieve modesty by obscuring that which might attract or distract another, but rather by not emphasizing any feature with the intent of playing such feature to one’s advantage. In a congregational setting, the focus should be upon the Almighty so anything that draws attention to God’s creation rather than the Creator is immodest, perhaps even idolatrous. After all, what human can take credit for beauty? There is a clear line between stewardship of our earthen vessels and vaingloriousness. This is not to say that a man or woman should avoid positive grooming and styling, but some healthy self-examination is in order. No, a person with physical disfigurement need not eschew measures to conceal burns any more than a mastectomy patient should forsake a prosthesis. At the same time, however, there remains a distinction between confidence and dependency. There is nothing shameful in availing oneself of such measures to restore one’s confidence, but all would agree that it is psychologically healthier to have self-confidence independently of the external. So the use of cosmetics is not malum in se, but one should ask oneself why one feels a burden to embellish one’s appearance just because one is part of the front-and-center worship team (again, 1 Sam 16:7). Indeed, while watching various YouTubes and Pandos, I do wish that male vocalists and musicians would apply some liquid foundation and translucent finishing powder to nix that oily T-zone glare, but Western culture says that men should be disconcerned with such things while women should be obsessive with such things. And anyone who transgresses these arbitrary delineations runs afoul of Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5.
Paradoxically, I agree that Christians should represent the Kingdom positively why should the Almighty’s redeemed children live as if impoverished (Psalm 50:10)? At the same time, why should we who are to be characterized by love make a showing of excess when excess could be directed to almsgiving? Yet by another token, there are circumstances where a pricey gift is an appropriate gesture of love and appreciation for a spiritual leader (Mk 14:3, Jn 12:3). So can a preacher wear a designer suit? That is between him and God who knows the circumstances and the heart. Can an evangelist drive a luxury vehicle? That is also between her and God who knows the circumstances and the heart. Should we construct beautiful places of worship? I think so (Mt 6:22, Lk 12:34), but not to obsession (Mt 6:24, Lk 16:13).
During the corona hysteria I discovered one Tennessee church’s online stream and I couldn’t fathom how anyone allowed one vocalist to wear her particular bluejeans on stage _every_ week. Even at the risk of judging, I will say that her wardrobe and her body language STRONGLY communicated an unquenchable psychological need for attention. And all that was done with otherwise unassuming articles of clothing. Lately I have been watching a Texas church’s monthly worship nights and I am perplexed by the cosmetics. From a technical video production perspective, those men need to do something with their oily T-zones! From a metrosexual perspective, some of the older women seriously need some one-on-one MUA tutoring–cheekbone rouging ended in 1993! Hello, you’re fifty now, not twenty, and today one contours the cheek from ear to mouth. And one does not typically use color eyshadow as much now. Earth-tones are more the thing for routine application. I do not find their makeup conceited or offensive (retro-sad, yes) but it provokes a reflection on Mike Warnke’s joke, “Q: Well, just how much makeup should a Christian woman wear? A: I don’t know, it depends on her face!”
How we present ourselves reflects how we perceive ourselves as much as how we perceive our station. I am becoming more and more convinced that middle-of-the-road is where balance lies. Makedown is good for stage lighting and video recording, and I rather now grasp the utility of clerical and choral robes. Those who are front-and-center are performing a service.
Wow, check out the replies and comments!
All clothing is unisex if you stop being a little bitch about it
— Saint Sims (@SimsJoseph) August 23, 2018