Crossdressers-Haven.com

A Bush relative perhaps?

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West's Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women - the form of a true lady - is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.

In advocating the wearing of dresses, I must distinguish between the flowing elegant dresses of tradition and the more degenerate and immodest dresses of our present culture. The miniskirt, a dress of sorts that doesn't extend below the knees, is both lacking in modesty and elegance. Elegance is essential to femininity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of masculinization. Modesty is essential to feminine virtue, and the lack thereof implies a state of whorification. Immodest, inelegant dresses constitute a degeneration and androgynization of true dresses.

The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. In discarding feminine dress, women seem to have symbolically discarded femininity and modesty (the virtues of women) in favor of sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men). The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture. Dresses are an essential part of any true lady's attire, and they should be worn.

Haecker is a history junior.

I can only assume that he never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

Virginia

What a load of equine excrement.

Absaroka

^ Ditto!! . . . and oh-so-politely stated, too!

"Haecker" brings to mind something I've always said:

I've seen a lot of horse's asses in my life . . . but not so many horses!!

- SL

Pants epitomize manhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace dresses in the sixth century (an aspect of the West's Germanic barbarian heritage). Pants allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Pants are the indelible image of manhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, pants in particular symbolize manhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true gentleman, the objective understanding of what women find attractive in the stronger sex: machismo, skirt-chasing, raping, pillaging, post-coital snoring, impiety and polygamy. These defining aspects of manhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in men is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What women find attractive in men is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of masculinity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What women find attractive in men - the form of a true gentleman- is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, masculinity is like a wolf howling at the moon, and a wolf howling at the moon is timeless and universal.

What's not like a wolf howling at the moon is self-honesty (not to be confused with the "genderinity" of your choice), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved pants and the adoption of dresses by the "new man." Like all fashions, dresses are symbolic of something - in this case femininity - through their allowance of modesty and elegance. Pants, the antithesis of dresses, symbolize masculinity through physical activity. Women find physical activity in men to be attractive, and pants are a physical manifestation of masculinity. The wearing of dresses by men represents the feminization of the stronger sex, which is not at all attractive.

In advocating the wearing of pants, I must distinguish between the rugged trousers of tradition and the more degenerate and immodest pants of our present culture. Tight-fitting, crotch-hugging, peg-legged jeans, pants of sorts that don't leave any room to the imagination, are both lacking in ruggedness and masculine appeal. Ruggedness is essential to masculinity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of feminization. Ruggedness is essential to masculine virtue, and the lack thereof implies a state of sissification. Unrugged, unappealing pants constitute a degeneration and androgynization of true pants.

The androgynous feminization of the modern man, through the donning of dresses, pantsuits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow sissification of manhood. In discarding masculine dress, men seem to have symbolically discarded sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men) in favor of compassion, understanding, and emotional integrity (the virtues of women). The ideal form of a true gentleman is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture. Pants are an essential part of any true gentleman's attire, and they should be worn.

CJ is a not a history junior.

One thing I've got to say: if Haecker thinks that we must wear dresses (or pants, as the case may be) because failing to do so will prevent us from recognizing which bathroom to use, he (or she) seriously needs to start his (or her) education all over again. Like, from kindergarten. And buy a lifetime supply of Depends, too.

Love,
CJ

omg Donna I thought you had swallowed a dictionary, until I got nearer the end and realsed it was an extract. LOL

How quaint, it could have been written by my father. He was victorian too!

ttfn

Kerri

This is an old article kind of along the same lines, but does provide some amusing reading. Ladies, don't shoot the messenger and no prizes for guessing the author's gender.
Stephanie

PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SKIRT

The salient feature of the skirt is its large opening underneath, which exposes the genital area to the rest of the world. This is no coincidence, by any means. It is a direct reflection of a woman's psyche. Mentally and emotionally, a woman is in a constant sexual relationship with all things in the universe. Things don't just happen to her; they overwhelm her. She is taken by them and carried far away. She is forever passive and exposed to such a possibility. She knows it and even revels in it, and the skirt is a potent symbol of this.

The opening of the skirt exists as though to allow the world unfettered access to her innermost treasure. Through the opening, she can be probed and groped without warning. A sudden breeze can twirl the skirt playfully, before racing though the opening and up her legs as though in erotic pursuit. The slightest carelessness when sitting down can create an opening where none should be. A stranger could, without warning, lift up her skirt and expose her for all the world to see. She is vulnerable, a mood which she experiences erotically. She lives in trembling anticipation of what might happen. Excitement courses through her veins and gives her personality that little bit more zip.

When a woman puts on a skirt she enters into a relationship of trust with the rest of the world. As a protective defence, the skirt is flimsy, almost non-existent. And yet she puts it on because she trusts the world not to take advantage of her vulnerability. This places her in the position she likes best - that of being passive, helpless and innocent. If someone forces himself upon her, she immediately becomes the victim. It's not her fault that she didn't erect better defences. She is innocent and helpless, barely aware of what is going on.

What gives the skirt its power is its flimsiness. As a defence, a man could breach it whenever he wishes. And yet he doesn't even make the attempt. He holds back out of respect for her. The woman interprets his holding back as a testament to her powers as a woman. It is her virtues as a woman, her personality and physical attractiveness, that keeps men from overwhelming her paltry defences and taking advantage of her. And so the skirt provides the woman with a double dose of erotica - not only does it create a sense of vulnerability that comes with being helpless and semi-exposed, but it provides proof of her ability as a woman to cast spells over men.

The skirt always brings to mind two contrasting images of woman - the "innocent girl" and "the whore" - but rarely in equal strength. The latter tends to be a lot weaker than the former. Woman is at her most erotic when the whorish elements are all but concealed and only hinting at their existence. But it is that very hinting which highlights the "virtues" of the woman, much like how the black night sky highlights the presence of the moon. Her appearance and clothing suggests that she is always on the verge of whoredom. The fact that she never seems to cross that line is proof that she is indeed a virtuous woman.

Through the skirt, and other related apparel, the woman can confine her display of sexuality to her outer garments and keep her mind virtuous and seemingly free of all sexual cunning. The contrast between her mind (the innocent girl) and her clothing (the whore) not only disarms men with their mixed messages, but each element of the equation serves to enhance the other. The girlish innocence seems even more innocent and virtuous in contrast to the background whorishness, and the whorishness itself seems more erotically appealing with the presence of the innocence.

Taken together, these two elements form the essential substance of what a woman is. If a woman were to eliminate all signs of the whore from her being (which would be an act of real virtue), then she would no longer appear virtuous. She would appear, as she really is - a bland non-entity. A woman's existence and significance is wholly dependent upon her sexuality. Take that way and she becomes nothing.

The skirt is primarily an erotic tool that has evolved over the centuries to keep men spellbound to the importance of caring for women. It has no other function than that. It teases men with the erotic possibilities of womankind and maintains their interest in the woman's world. The skirt suggests to the man that having his way with its owner will be effortless and easy, and so he is kept intrigued with the promise of easy rewards ....... to the point where he is prepared to work fourteen hour days for her benefit.

Yeah! and don't you forget it!

Virginia

Hmmmm... okay, Steph, I figure this was written by a female... baboon. Some folks need a serious intravenous shot of evolution.

CJ

^ You are soooooo right, CJ!!

I was going to say the author needed to be slapped around a few times and then given a good swift kick in the pants with very pointy boots . . . but I'm not that nasty.

*Hugs*

- SL

CJ

The 'baboon' in this case goes by the name of David Quinn. I was curious to see whether you would expound on his musings, but perhaps linking it to the theory of evolution is probably sufficient.

Stephanie

The first time I wore a skirt publicly was to a Halloween party. A woman there reached up under the skirt and pinched my rear. I didn't mind, she was a semi friend and cute. But it did give the feeling of a sense of being less protected by a skirt than by a pair of pants.

Otherwise the less said about Mr. Quinn the better. Consider his musings proof that evolution can go backwards as well as forward.

Absaroka