Current in the past, (remember the Greek tunic to the warlike little skirt of the Roman soldier), the skirt is today still the attribute of men in a lot of countries, and sometimes even their exclusiveness : Pakistani shalwar kamiz ,North-African caftan or Scottish kilt... On the history of the 2500 year old humanity, there is less than 250 years in Europe, the man still wore skirts tunics or kilt.

However, the centuries saw the women borrowing little by little all the elements of male garde-robe, to start with the hat, at the 16th century, while passing by the jackets of man at the 18th century (for hunting, horsemanship), to finish by the trousers , so revolutionary, at the beginning of the 20th century.

since two centuries, our modern society has put acccent on the side output, effectiveness and action of the man. With the time of industrialization, the men, considered as machines, were to be useful and profitable. Consequently, any "decorative" clothing in opposition to functional was banished from male guard wraps. Thus was born the trousers such as we know it since 1820. Much more practical to work in the factories of mass production. With the skirt, low-sticking but also gradually jewels and hats disappeared.

The woman, more expansive, continued to discover other clothing and other styles, to dress herself according to its personality or its mood. This becomes with the wire of time, a right for her. But this freedom was always connected with the concern of taking care of harmonizing colors, clothing and silhouette well to build a harmonious image.

Our modern society has an annoying tendency to all to catalogue, all to label, all to divide: one is of left or one is of right-hand side. One is for or one is against. One is man or one is woman. And for obvious reasons of profitability in the marketing and mass production, clothing was divided into two categories: men shops and woman shops.

Victim of 2 centuries of taboos, the man's guard wraps was reduced with an strict panoply, keeping only the necessary one to its work to completely forsake the Skirt, clothing with more contemplative dimension, where the female connotation could make fear that his sex and can be especially his sexual orientation are called in question.

The liberalization of the woman (symbolized by her conquest of the trousers ) obliges us to take part in this evolution which goes in the direction of a meeting, an alliance between our conscious dimension and our unconscious dimension. Thus the Men out of Skirt appeared.

Although undergoing a psychological insulation, we are some in Belgium and to elsewhere dare to leave in skirt in the street. We cannot justify our acts by the claim on a practical side (whereas it was the principal reason for womens out of trousers ). It is however better to support heat. What motivates us: the different feelings from those of the trousers, the pleasure of the change, the research of entirety to be it.

If these explorations can make scandal today, it is because it do not have any utility (the practical side is reduced) and because it terribly call into question the image of the Man, taboo subject. Not, the Man is not this carapace which the costume illustrates so well (substitute of industrial times to the armour), he can be sensitive, sensual. This sensuality can relate to other fields that those, agreed, like good wine or expensive food. The man has a body and he has the right to show it in a context other than sporting (which context is reassuring because his power does not call) or estival.

We want not to drive back any more what a traditional education regards being as specifically female. We know that in the past (Antiquity, the Average Age or the modern time), our similar got dressed with skirts or dresses (and sticking). Inserted in a consumer society increasingly more demanding, we want to live fully in a comfortable and elegant dress, adapted to our morphology without calling into question our male condition. we refuse the monolithic male image conveyed since the appearance of the industrial society. We suffer from one miss vestimentary freedom, of a lack of recognition in our sensitivity. We suffer from one miss vestimentary freedom, of a lack of recognition in our sensitivity.