It won't be considered cross-dressing at this rate...

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

Disclaimer: This post was completely random and made up as I went along. It may or may not make sense to you, or to anyone.

So I'm sitting here thinking about that blasted catch-phrase "mirl", that is supposed to describe men (or as I call them, boys :rolleyes: ) who emanate femininity as opposed to exuding machismo.

I consider myself on of these kids.
Guys.
Boys.
Whatever.

I don't think of myself as a girl.
Ew.

I realize that contradicts the majority of members here.
To each their own I say.

But there is one each I would not like to own.
And that is stupididiotic catch-alls (labels) for trendy people.

Think about this for a second.

Suppose we accellerate ourselves into a hypothetical situation 10 years from now.
Don't think of anything just yet. The only important matter at hand is in this era is the fact bigenderism has become quite commonplace.
Visualize a place, where it's trendy to dress like Camui Gackt, being a grown boy and dressing effeminately.
HOWEVER, it is still uncommon and somewhat looked down upon by the aging populations of the U.S., or Britain, or other place that is not as accepting of these things, to dress completely in drag or to disguise ones self as the opposing sex.

In this place, what do you do?
Do you change your mentality?
Is it easier, or more difficult to go out dressed how you truly feel?
Do you despise society for having tunnel vision, focused only on what is popular at the moment?

That said, I whole-heartedly intend to overhaul my style to reflect how I truly feel, as a very effeminate boy, which means wearing girls street clothing, or just futuresque kinky fantasy stuff like the fictional guy in my avatar.


http://www.confusticated.com/kof2k3/winner/ash.gif
Do you think I'm living a dream?

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

Post script:
I guess my reasoning here is, why must we try to change our identity?

Because society has lead us to believe it can be one way?

You feel a certain way but are given an alternate body, or so you believe.

I see the act of changing ones self not to oppose societies idea of what one should be, but because one was programmed to believe one should be designed to physically represent how one feels.

I myself was designed correctly, or I assume as much.

What does anyone really know?

[ronna]

You've been reading too much Plato

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

You've been reading too much Plato
In all seriousness I have never studied a bit of whatever that guy or anyone ever did.

I'm just naturally philosophical.
Perhaps too much for my own good.

Perhaps not enough.

Perhaps it will rain tomorrow.

Nobody really knows.

[Mira]

"To deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human."

Or so I have heard.

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

"To deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human."
Or so I have heard.
I heard that as well but I think that particular quote was focusing on acts of sex.
To deny ourselves sex is to deny why we even exist.

But I suppose if one were to alter it slightly

"That which makes us human is impulsive"

it can be construed as something very different.

To be human is to act upon will or spontaneity.

As I often do.

[Clare]

I laughed at the title of your thread - you've made my day!

But it does have meaning - at what point do we go from crossdressers to mainstream dressers?

Keep in mind it may take another decade for the 'mirl' thing to totally catch on though.

Christine

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

Keep in mind it may take a couple of decades for the 'mirl' thing to totally catch on though.

Christine
Conversely, the hour may be at hand.

Perhaps I play too much MGS:TS.

[Mira]

And being willful means we have purpose driven by reason. We "chose" to do this. That is my point, as feeble as it is. The future is fluid, and in my old age, I avoid it's possibilies as today is the only form I have left.

[Julie]

Okay, let's say hypothetically this mirl fad catches on. The next generation will be brought up with the idea it's okay to dress however you wish, since males dressing femininely is the only serious taboo we have right now. So when they get into their 20's and 30's it will be pretty much mainstream to dress however you want.

Does that change any of us on the inside? Does that take away the fact we are crossdressers or transgendered or transsexuals or fetish dressers?

What I do see coming from this is CDs and TGs will have the freedom to dress as they wish without persecution. If they are interested in the opposite sex then someone might label them a mirl. Or maybe by then that label will have vansihed. When women started wearing pants they were called all sorts of names. Today no one would use any of those terms when referring to a woman just because she's wearing pants.

I think the mirl is an another attempt by fashion pioneers to start something they hope will catch on and then they will go down in fashion history as the one who originated the concept. There really isn't many new places for them to go other than into the static world of men where change has been resisted formidably since the cave man. We've already seen one designer come out with high heels for men and now the mirl. Once that takes hold (and I don't see that happening for some time, if at all) the designers will have to resort to beyond bizzare for something new. I only hope I'm around to see it. ;)

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

Okay, let's say hypothetically this mirl fad catches on. The next generation will be brought up with the idea it's okay to dress however you wish, since males dressing femininely is the only serious taboo we have right now. So when they get into their 20's and 30's it will be pretty much mainstream to dress however you want.

Does that change any of us on the inside? Does that take away the fact we are crossdressers or transgendered or transsexuals or fetish dressers?

What I do see coming from this is CDs and TGs will have the freedom to dress as they wish without persecution. If they are interested in the opposite sex then someone might label them a mirl. Or maybe by then that label will have vansihed. When women started wearing pants they were called all sorts of names. Today no one would use any of those terms when referring to a woman just because she's wearing pants.

Are you sure? The only way anyone is going to get away with not being branded a weirdo is by hanging out with children, teens, and 20-somethings of the era.
MAYBE a few 30-somethings but my age group now isn't as positive as it could be. Not nearly as much as todays teens.


I think the mirl is an another attempt by fashion pioneers to start something they hope will catch on and then they will go down in fashion history as the one who originated the concept. There really isn't many new places for them to go other than into the static world of men where change has been resisted formidably since the cave man. We've already seen one designer come out with high heels for men and now the mirl. Once that takes hold (and I don't see that happening for some time, if at all) the designers will have to resort to beyond bizzare for something new. I only hope I'm around to see it. ;)
All I know is I hate whoever coined that term, like noone has ever used it before in history. It's a joke, and just another way to target, label, and ostracise presumably innocent people.

[susandrea]

If I could add my two cents, I think all the latest "fashions" such as "Metrosexual", "Mirl", and "Men in Skirts" is the beginning of a breakthrough (or should I say re-breakthrough since it's happened before in history) of men (gay or not) demanding the same kind of choices that women have. Some of you who are old enough, remember the fuss caused back in the sixties when men grew their hair long? Now it's not a big deal.

As I see it, it could only help the crossdresser cause by getting the mainstream (and currently largely disapproving public) accustomed to seeing men in alternate forms of dress (pun intended) so it will be much easier for them to go out among the throng without getting hassled.

This is not a new concept. Back in the sixties and seventies it was attempted, but it didn't take. Fashion designers (especially Jean Paul Gaultier) have been attempting it for years and but so far it's a slow go. I thought it was very interesting when Sting showed up at the Grammy's in a "Man's skirt" and there was little fuss about it.

Maybe it will now, maybe it won't. It would be great, wouldn't it? if ten years from now a man in a skirt and/or make-up or whatever won't require a dopey label or even raise an eyebrow. Unless he's looking particularly hot!

Maybe some women will even get a bit inspired to bag the jeans look every day and slip on a sexy dress more often, when they see the guys having all the fun!

Adding a few more variables to the current mix has got to be a good thing because it means more freedoms for all, don't you think?

[Ibuki_Warpetal]

Some of you who are old enough, remember the fuss caused back in the sixties when men grew their hair long? Now it's not a big deal.
If I don't keep my hair tamed (ie tightly wound up on the back of my head) one of my superiors will come up from behind me and slice it off.

Maybe not, but they said multiple times I needed to keep it under a hat
or get it cut.

If you think about it, though, the adult generation of the 60s were practically raised by WWII and thought crew cuts were high fashion. :p