Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックはロックされています 
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
But then again due to ever so slightly evolving world and different views from various states that may not be the case for every one.
If my male friends started wearing skirts I would not really care, to each his own. Sure, I might feel abit embarrassed at first, but really it's just a piece of clothing. And there are cultures in the world where men do wear things that look like typical western women's clothing.
I mean, a kilt is objectively a skirt, if you look purely at the physical design ot it.
**
What follows is an honest attempt to address the situation at hand. Some people don't like to think this much. I do. And, I do so because it matters to people and their quality of life or society at large or even sheds light on how human behavior develops and changes in people, groups and cultures. It's also very interesting. (To me. :)) So, here ya go:
TLDR: Clothing is not culturally or socially viewed like a unisex onesie. It's not all casually utilitarian and no amount of insistence that it is will make any sense. It is meaningful and immediately communicates social and cultural values and sexual-signaling intents. That is so very pervasive in human society it would be difficult to find an instance where that is not the case, IMO. (I'm not an anthropologist, though can think of a few rare instances, maybe. Just maybe. Need to check on that a bit more, though.)
***
But, why is one then wearing clothes?
It seems you've reduced clothing to it's most basic purpose - Protection. And, even then, you're still ignoring the fact that a pair of shorts "made for women" are very likely to be exactly as you describe them - "Made for women."
Now, let's ignore, for the nonce, certain physical characteristics that could make such a garment a bit uncomfortable for men. (Fact is fact)
If all clothing was reduced to an "if it fits" standard and, coupled with only a severe interpretation of utilitarianism, then there would be no (*little) social or sexual-signalling significance at all to be found in "clothing." It would be generic.
Thus, there would be no personal desire or inducement to wear a particular piece of clothing that can be used for sexual signalling, which is exactly what is going on with those who purposefully wear clothing of an opposing gender as a choice to signal to others their gender status.
Do you see how convoluted that chain of reasoning becomes? At that point, what would be the point at all of targeting clothing as a gender statement for those people? Zero. None. They do it and are motivated to do it purposefully. Because.. that's what it's used for in human cultures.
It is simply not a choice that is reduced down to an "if it fits" decision. It is not that simple.
And, what of the majority of others that wear clothing and, knowingly or not, are using it for sexual signalling or recognize it as such, even if they do not see themselves as purposefully doing it? Are they "wrong?" They're only doing the same thing that anyone else, including trans/gay/etc would be doing as a social human being.
To tell them that their adornment does not matter and that they are somehow "wrongly" using it... flies in the face of deeply ingrained human social behavior.
I'm not an anthropologist, so I can't speak to a great many cultures in the world or their history. But, I find it very difficult to think of a culture where, when adornment was present, it was not also used for sexual signalling. (Where we have enough data, that is.)
There are certainly instances in history where cultures used adornments in such a way that seems unusual to us, like males applying eyeliner in Egypt and with surrounding cultures during certain periods. That their practices seem strange to us doesn't mean our blithe interpretation is correct - They weren't pushing sexual-signalling boundaries. And, neither were the "fops" of the Victorian age/similar. Though, there were some class distinctions just like with any fad or trend or any other expected manner of behavior or dress to denote social status.
We use adornments based upon cultural imperatives that we somehow figure out and often blindly accept. We all wish to belong, right? When we do not, such individuals are considered strange by others in their culture. It is a "natural" social reaction. And, it's not just when dealing with issues of gender, either.
This is not a social/cultural mechanic that can be ignored or reduced to some generic unisex onesie in terms of how significant it is and how we humans use clothing for social communication. (Accepted => Unisex cold-weather survival gear, for instance.)
What should be promoted, instead, is that those who feel their lives are negatively impacted by being pressured to wear clothing outside of their own interpretation of their social place in their culture should be able to "cross" that boundary without being further persecuted.
However...
That won't happen. Or, at least not easily without certain conditions being met and certain things at work here being more clearly, socially, culturally, defined.
At least, not in the case where, for instance, a masculine man's adoption of a pink party dress as their favored adornment and the one they are most comfortable wearing. Why? It's too extreme a clash between individual preference an established, seemingly inherent, culturally orchestrated social use of clothing.
But, a very effeminate man may do so with little cultural pushback. There may be some unease, there, as sexual-signalling confusion takes hold, though. That's a real thing, too. Why can they do this? As crazy as it seems, it's closer to norms that can be clearly understood, in my opinion. Definitions here, signals here, are not as socially confusing.
IMO, as long as clothing and adornments are habitually, and seemingly near to an evolutionarily, influenced behavior, used for sexual-signalling, such human cultures will have members that will always react negatively when that social convention is turned on its ear.
Some "new"... "sex" and a cultural interpretation of it will have to be present for it to be acceptable with less turmoil.
And, guess what? That has happened! Most famously in India, somewhat in US Native American tribes in deep hihstory, likely many other cultures as well. But, it's exceedingly rare and still often disruptive or only found in somewhat isolated regions and sub-cultures. Wide adoption in the modern era has not taken hold and may never do so... We now have "sex change" operations and hormone treatments and all that jazz that is becoming much more accepted, at least in its presence and appearance and use of clothing, than transvetism/cross-dressing or any other form of the use of clothing that attempts to blur the cultural lines and reduce the value of adornments as social-signaling. (Just my opinion at the moment. Could change if i think more about it. :))
As it goes, it's pretty much as I said, here in most of the western world, this sort of thing is a non issue. In fact I'd token that in most countries nobody could tell what sex clothes you're wearing if it's casual.
I do modify my own clothing (partly because I'm smaller and well, I can). Can anyone guess which of the clothes I'm wearing in my profile picture are designed for blokes, and which for women?
I can't, to be fair. But, I probably need glasses and I don't know which one of those people you are. The big poofy jacket thing that looks like a clown threw up, maybe? :)
I bought a pair of sweatpants last year. It was a cheap clothing store and I needed some pants, so... yeah. I just grabbed them. They were on the rack besides "male" clothing. I didn't care what they looked like. They were supposedly "2X" and I figured they'd be comfy for lounging around in, so I figured I was safe.
I was not safe.
Those were not crafted for a man. They almost permanently changed the pitch of my voice the first time I sat down in them. They were crafted for a Ken doll...
Although it might well be difficult to see in that picture. the jacket is a bloke's jacket, as is the t-shirt.
The jeans though.... they're both. They're a pair of these German-made jeans I found. They're made from bunging parts of other jeans together. So the underneath "normal" pair of jeans is a bloke's pair of jeans and the bits I've added on top are a women's pair.
I also have some long sleeved t-shirts that are womens, and all I've done is a slight change in the stitching in certain places.
Actually, regarding the jacket. It's probably not for blokes or women but actually it's own animal. I like to think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ryVnhl6NU
: ) ... Sorry man, couldn't resist. Respect!
we're selfish and lazy
Same thing if we had to give birth. The human race would go extinct.