My fashion sense takes a while to catch up.
My summer shorts for many years have been…short.
Five-inch rise common. Think Crocodile Hunter.
Cargo pockets yes, but the small ones up high on the thigh front.

Late this summer three things happened to me:
I noticed that everyone seemed to be wearing knee length cargo shorts except me.
I asked my family (wife, adult children) and friends if my shorts were “out of style”. YES!
I acquired my first kilt (an AK). Length 24 inches. Perfect for my six-foot height and knee height for the kilt to lay just at the top of my knees.

Surrendering to current common fashion (what an odd comment for a kilt wearer to make!) and taking advantage of end of season discounts, I purchased knee length cargo shorts.

They are the same length as a kilt! And look best that way.
And look “off” if worn below the knee or too far above.
And wide-legged enough to lay away form the skin – a kilt echo?

I think back to the original “Bermuda Shorts” and British military shorts.
Knee length. Commonly worn with hose.

Have we come full circle? Kilts to Western Desert/Tropical Shorts to to Bermuda Shorts to today’s cargo shorts.

Swim Trunks went from long to short and back to knee length surf shorts.
Cycling shorts? Just above the knee. Ok maybe higher than that.

I seem to recall that Utilkilts were first designed as modified cargo shorts.

So Tartan and pleats and swing (don’t say swish*) aside for the moment, bifurcation is the only “obstacle” to wider kilt wear.
(*And maybe call them front panels rather than apron?)

Really not such a big final step one would think. Or is it?

Your thoughts? Good stuff for kilt explanation/advocacy/conversion persuasion conversations?

I suppose it can be thrown back. WHY were shorts used rather than kilts issued in the desert? Why were there no “Bermuda Kilts”?
Is the garment style association too firmly set as female unless Tartan and Scottish?