Trans....#1 .....Vestite

We live in an age of aggressive sexualism. It takes several forms, from quite mild adventurism and exploration all the way and building up to complete lunacy.  We get a bit of the milder sort here in the Tavern. We are open to most people, after all, and the bouncer lets most people through the door, albeit on condition.

Take the fellow who came in the other day. He wanted a dram or two of my finest single malt which is not unusual but he did attract the attention of quite a few of the ladies. He was wearing a Kilt, you see. 

Need I say that some ladies were interested in what was beneath ?  They were in for a surprise, and so were some of the regulars. He had to take his shirt off to emphasise his masculinity.

Slipped into something comfortable.

Even then eyebrows were raised.

We knew that the Kilt was made of heavy material of a manly, rough sort, and as he explained, he prefers some sort anti-chafing under it. So he wore a half-slip. A Ladies' one (Well they don't make them for chaps, do they).

Ladies don't seem to wear slips very often these days (such a shame) so even they were interested ! 

Cute: feminine. No mistaking.

Now I cannot say that I am a fan of chaps wearing clothes made for ladies, but I could see his point. I stopped any of the ladies (and him) exposing his underpants lest his proclivities extended there too and he might have caused a riot. Not that I would have cared one way or another mind you (except for the riot of course - they tend to pet precious beer on the carpet) but I did not want the Bouncer over-extended.  Indeed, back in the days when Knights such as m'self wore even tougher stuff - steel plate and chain mail - it was quite usual to wear a silk shift underneath. Silk stopped the rust shards getting to the skin.

A Knight is often thought to have worn a 'token' from his lady but we forget that such tokens were, er... varied. 

There is a long history of men wearing women's clothes. It has always been frowned upon.  But as Camiile Paglia demonstrated and documented in her massive tome 'Sexual Persona', it is women who are the transvestites par excellance. And that continues today.

It is an oddity of 'equality' that society accepts women wearing men's clothes but not the other way around. It must have a lot to do with inherent aspects of masculinity and femininity, but that is for others to discuss.

Today though it is ridiculous and there is a 'feminisation' of our society that seems to derive much 'pleasure' in driving masculinty into the ground under a high heeled shoe.

There are even fashion wierdos putting dresses on men! Weird is the result.

To make sure the dress does not clash with the colour of his eyes, he wears sunglasses.
Its what dorks do.

I have no problem with ladies wearing y-fronts or men wearing whatever they want to out of sight, but unsightly dresses on an unsightly body is well... er... wierd. Who would want to go out like that?

OK, so Roman soldiers wore skirts and Alexander the Great too, but legend has it that he had shapely legs.  But the chaps today who 'might' gravitate to dresses and skirts are hardly soldier material, let's face it.

Of course, what he and his lady get up to in the privacy of their home is their business but I would instruct my bouncer to draw the line at some attires in the bars.

Yes, it is not usual and certainly not in public. They would be derided and no doubt there would be a movement to force changes to the law so that those who laughed and pointed at chaps in lingerie and dresses would be fined and jailed. 

But women of course can wear what they like. No-one can comment or they will be fined and locked up. 

Even Princesses wear men's clothes.  Can you imagine Prince Chuck turning up to a function in a dress? I very much doubt he had much of a say in what Diana wore. She seemed to wear anything she fancied but a seat-belt.

The tavern has several lines we draw. Skirt length for instance. If the scotsman had bent over to reveal his knickers we would have given his arse a taste of size ten boot, yet we have had the occasional woman attempting to show us her taste in knickers, and even what she had for breakfast,  which has resulted in a flick with the towel and a swift escorting to the stables.

Women seem to revel in exposing themselves. I can see the attraction, being a red-blooded chap, but it can be taken too far. 

But in the 'entertainment ' biz, which has completely colonised most of the world and its mind, the transvestite woman is almost revered.

She is never called out for it. Indeed, she gets awards despite it.

They strut around as faux-men at will.

Now, again, what folk wear has always been a question of 'fashion' and nowhere recently (say 150 years) have men been encouraged into dresses. Until now. And the 'freedom' to wear whatever one wants, and that may well include a chap dressed in silks and satins under his suit, is used as an excuse to drive 'gender' out of clothing and force children into confusion. Even about themselves. 

From there, the handrail at the top of the slippery slope gets oiled and peters out after a very few yards.

And so we find the transexuals thrust upon us. 

I did not ask, and neither did anyone else, just where the scottish chap in his ladies' underwear kept his dirk.

Some people have strange places for those too.

Mr Knife-Nose is mad. He would not last two minutes even in the UK room. But so are many these days.  Mad, that is. And bad. The transgender madness/badness is a spreading virus. It is affecting everyone even down to small children in school.

But that is for another time.  Trans #2 time.

Pax, and C.Y.A.