indecency

[Zardoz]

In the 6 years or so I've been on this forum there have been lots of kilt lifter posts, but I don't recall seeing a member claim that he got in any kind of "legal trouble" over 'indecency' as it were.

[Peter Lowe]

Because we are all interested in kilts we take note of others who wear kilts. So we are more aware if "exposure" takes place.

How many times have you seen someone wearing jeans the "modern" way expose more than anyone wants to see?

So what's the fuss?

Peter

[Spartan Tartan]

Ahhhh...

I have never heard of any actual legal issues. Although, there are some threads here that discuss negative consequences (or threats to that effect) from going kilted at work.

[The Wizard of BC]

I happen to be an eye witness to an incident in Vancouver a few years ago.

A pub where a group of kilted gentlemen were meeting.

Three gents were leaning against the bar and a lady (who obviously had had a few) walked down the line asking to kilt check them to insure they were 'properly' attired.

She approached the first and begged. "Oh please, can I check under your kilt?" After a couple of requests and denials the gentleman let her do a check just to get rid of her.

She then approached the second man. "Oh pretty please, can I check?"
The second man smiled and said it was OK if she would insure her hands were warm.

She then approached the third man. Again, "Please, can I check?"
No, was his immediate answer. She persisted. "Oh, please, please can I check" which was met with another NO spoken quite plainly.

She asked coyly this time, "Oh please, pretty please can I check" she said as she moved directly in front of the man. When she got another no, she bent down, and grabbed the apron of his kilt.

As she came up with the aprons in her hands the man reached behind his back and took out a pair of handcuffs.

As he slapped the cuffs on the lady he said in a loud voice, "Ma'am, I said no three times. In today's world no actually does means no. You are under arrest."

Of course the man was an off duty police officer.

The lady had her day in court, was convicted of sexual assault and must now register as a sex offender where ever she lives, for the rest of her life.

Here in Canada, lifting the hem of a garment with the intent of seeing or exposing what is or is not worn underneath can be, and truthfully at times is, viewed as sexual assault. No differentiation is made by the law as to the gender of the wearer or the person doing the exposing. Assault is assault.

True story, not myth. It is in the public record.

[Taj]

The Wizard's story is as it should be. I've had neither accidental exposure that anyone has drawn attention to nor a "kilt check." If someone lifted my kilt uninvited I would consider it assault or harassment.

[Cherub]

The Wizards story illustrates what I have always said be polite to everybody because you never know who they might be. I have an excellent story for this if you want to hear it PM me it's not kilt related so I will not post it here.

[Mike M.]

Steve cites a good answer. Start lifting hems, and sooner or later you'll run into someone inclined to take umbrage.

[The Wizard of BC]

Perhaps it is due to my age. I can remember a time when any woman was 'fair game'. When a woman could be treated in ways that in today's world would be met with legal action.

I vividly remember the trials and tribulations the woman's movement went through to gain the basics of human rights. Sure, we are not totally there yet, but we are far better at respecting people than we were when I was a teenager and learning about women.

I was taught in those days to determine if a thought or action was improper, was to reverse the question. If I were to think that a person of a different race was wrong to sit in a particular restaurant, ask myself how I would feel if told I was not welcome there.

If it is improper to ask a lady if she is wearing underwear then look at the same question, under the same circumstances, reversed, and it is still improper.

I am as careful how I sit as a lady is. I would consider my flashing someone in public to be a shameful reflection on my self-respect and my consideration of others.

I have met some who seek some sort of thrill through their kilt wearing. I have met some who wear the kilt just to be asked the question. Sorry, I do not wear the kilt for sexual titillation.

So, I do not answer 'the question'. If, because I am a kiltmaker, I am asked if the myth is true, I can usually tell that the person is seeking factual information. If a woman asks the question I look at her with the same look I would receive if I had just asked her the same thing.

If I am asked by a man, I can usually assume that they are trying to anger me, or they are looking for a date. A smile and polite refusal is all that is needed.

To paraphrase a quote from above, "Indecent is as indecent does."

[Sir William]

I prefer to go regimental but when I wore my kilt to work (several days a month), I wore something underneath. That way in case of any mishap, such as tripping on something and falling, there was no risk of "flashing" anyone. Sexual harassment and indecency charges were taken very seriously by my organization. Better safe than sorry.

[Sir William]

....

If it is improper to ask a lady if she is wearing underwear then look at the same question, under the same circumstances, reversed, and it is still improper.

Once while kilted during the winter a woman wearing a skirt asked me if I didn't get cold wearing a kilt. I looked at her and replied "You're wearing a skirt, what do you think?"

She looked puzzled for a moment then laughed. We then had a pleasant discussion about kilts.