Deliberately "NOT" passing.

[Jamie001]

OK, I understand what you're getting at now, I see why you feel this is important.

But sadly, I think that you are chasing a dream, simply because of the question of numbers. Even though not all women started out incorporating pants in their daily fashion, there were a potential 100% women who would follow suite (which did end up being 100%), whereas there is less than 5% of the male population that wants to feminize their looks in the ways that you propose. So even if ALL the CDers in the world were to feminize themselves publicly, there would not be enough to change society's views on this, in my opinion. People would still be anxious over the few men who wish to cross the gender boundary.

Also, pants for women were not an attempt to cross any gender boundary, so doing so did not cause the same level of social anxiety. Women were motivated by a right to live to their full human potential, a desire to move out from under the dominion of men, equal privilege under the law, and equal pay on the job, which are human rights issues and not a gender statement. Wearing pants was not an attempt at looking masculine ... in fact, women's pants followed the shape of their curves in the hips and waist and the fashion industry modified the pants to look feminine, to differentiate them from men's pants.

Unfortunately, there is no way that the look that you propose (the feminization of men) is something that the 95% of non-CDers will want nor will they ever adopt this, since they are happy being masculine men. If all the CDers in the world were to come out in droves and declare their right to express femininity, their 5% numbers would still not be great enough to make it seem mainstream and to change society's views that it is not OK for men to cross the gender boundaries and feminize themselves.

Earlier I showed pics of styles that might work if you want to see a universal adoption of men wearing skirts, that does what women did (differentiate the styles to suit the gender), but you objected to this. So I'm afraid that what you are after (men wearing frilly and pretty things) will just never fly in the numbers required to make a difference since there simply are not enough men in our society who will go for it.

Reine,

I still believe that you are missing the point. I cited examples of other members of society that are on the fringe regarding self expression. Please consider folks that are in the extreme minority and are covered with tattoos, or have gigantic earrings that stretch their earlobes several inches, or multiple piercings. These folks are out and about in society even though I estimate their numbers are approximately 1 or 2 percent. They are accepted and tolerated by society. As feminine males, we are not nearly as "fringe" as these folks.

Also, you keep going back to the example of women wearing pants which is NOT a good analogy. Consider my examples of women wearing flannel shirts, masculine combat or hiking boots, men's watches, men's shirts, men's ties, and the list goes on and on. Your usual reply is "these items are available for women in the women's department of the store and therefore women wearing these items are not crossdressing". If you look in the women's shoe department, you can find Oxford Shoes that are exactly like the shoes that are sold in the men's shoe department. The same is true for many men's shoe styles that have been appropriated by designers of women's shoes. These shoes used to be considered very masculine and now they can be purchased in the women's shoe department. You are probably wondering where I'm going with this and if you think about it, it's really obvious:

The reason women have these masculine-style shoes and other masculine items that are sold in the women's department is because prior to these items being available, women purchased the items in the men's department. They wanted to add these masculine items to their wardrobes and just went ahead and purchased them in the men's department. I know at lest two women that have went this route and both of them are married and neither of them are lesbians. They just liked the look and comfort of some men's shoe styles and decided to wear them.

If more men were to start wearing women's shoes and other items in public, then eventually the identical items would be marketed to men in the same manner that traditional men's shoe styles wound-up in the women's shoe department. I have my doubts if this will ever happen because most men have been conditioned since early childhood that anything feminine is evil and to be avoided.

I also believe that folks that incorporate feminine items without attempting to pass and deceive folks that they are a woman are more readily accepted because there is no deception. Just like when a woman wears masculine shoes and a flannel shirt. She usually doesn't apply a fake beard to appear as a man. Everyone knows that she is a woman. On the other hand, when a crossdresser that is attempting to pass is clocked, folk may react negatively because they feel deceived. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but I believe that it's reality.

I hope that you can understand where I'm coming from. I have been on the internet for 20 years and have been advocating "Fashion Freedom For Men". Fashion freedom for men implies that men should not be relegated to drab, masculine, and utilitarian forms of expression. Women are permitted a lot more latitude in their expression by incorporating masculine items. If you don't believe this, I can google up a lot of information to support this position from articles in Cosmo and other women's magazines. Men need to be afforded the same latitude regarding the incorporation of masculine and feminine items in their presentation. In fact, I would like to see the concept of masculine and feminine abolished regarding the clothing, shoes, etc, but that is expecting too much.