indecency

[Mike_Oettle]

Richard, of North Baddesley, Hampshire, wrote: “Seeing that most are ‘not in a regiment’ you can wear what you like, just because the Scottish Army wear on underwear it doesn’t mean we have to follow suit.”

Well, I am not in a regiment now, nor have I been for 33 years. But when I was in a regiment, it was in the South African Army, not the Scottish.
And wearing underwear with the kilt was severely frowned on.
I got used to it, and I prefer it that way.
I have not worn underwear with the two kilts I bought this year. I may need to at some point, depending on circumstances, but so far I have had no problems.

And Dale, congratulations on your warrior name!
Regards,
Mike

[Frank]

Thankfully, I've never had anyone try to lift my kilt,and 'the question' is easily daealt with - smile and deflect the question for ladies, and stony silence coupled with an appropriate stare for men and drunks of either sex.

However on windy days - I wear tartan boxers:-

http://buyakilt.com/black-watch-tartan-boxer-shorts

Comfy and still tartan

[robthehiker]

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.

Wow, overreaction much?

[Finn]

My ex-wife taught the kids to "flouffle" daddy's kilt and possibly cause exposure. I wear boxers regardless. The wind has played havoc, particuliarly in cities.

[NeightRG]

Wow, overreaction much?

Definitely not. If a man asked to touch a woman under a her skirt, she said no (three times) and he just grabbed for her anyway, I know I'd want to hear that the full weight of the law came down on him.
Why not a woman committing the same crime?

[robthehiker]

Definitely not. If a man asked to touch a woman under a her skirt, she said no (three times) and he just grabbed for her anyway, I know I'd want to hear that the full weight of the law came down on him.
Why not a woman committing the same crime?

And you'd label her a sex offender? Put her in the same category as rapists and child molesters? Really?

edit: I'm not suggesting she shouldn't be charged with something, rather that the "sex offender" label is completely over the top.

[NeightRG]

And you'd label her a sex offender? Put her in the same category as rapists and child molesters? Really?

edit: I'm not suggesting she shouldn't be charged with something, rather that the "sex offender" label is completely over the top.

I really don't think it is. His protest meant absolutely nothing to her. She felt she had the right to just reach into somebody's clothes and attempt fondle them when they'd already told her not to three times.

It all boils down to "No means no" and in the end, she felt that her own intent was more important than his not wanting to be touched in a private area. That's the stuff that sexual assault is made of.

[robthehiker]

I really don't think it is. His protest meant absolutely nothing to her. She felt she had the right to just reach into somebody's clothes and attempt fondle them when they'd already told her not to three times.

It all boils down to "No means no" and in the end, she felt that her own intent was more important than his not wanting to be touched in a private area. That's the stuff that sexual assault is made of.

Who said anything about "intent to fondle"? She didn't fondle the other two guys (I assume).

Look, she was drunk and his two friends had previously allowed her to kilt check them. The cop could well have physically prevented her if he chose to. Instead he chose to ruin her life by having her branded a sex offender. We can pat ourselves on the back and say "if a man had done this to a woman..." but we all know the social acceptability (and frequency) are different for kilt checks and lifting up a woman's skirt (however wrong that may be).

[Pinkrose]

Who said anything about "intent to fondle"? She didn't fondle the other two guys (I assume).

Look, she was drunk and his two friends had previously allowed her to kilt check them. The cop could well have physically prevented her if he chose to. Instead he chose to ruin her life by having her branded a sex offender. We can pat ourselves on the back and say "if a man had done this to a woman..." but we all know the social acceptability (and frequency) are different for kilt checks and lifting up a woman's skirt (however wrong that may be).

Umm..., I don't speak "Law",so I am not sure whether what she did constitutes legal action; but in reading through the laws for Washington State Sexual Offenses and United States Sexual Abuse, it is very clear that both genders are treated equally in how they are prosecuted.

[CelticWarriorPoet]

If I'm in a much more public place with non-kilted folk I usually wear something...Oklahoma's "indecent exposure" laws are nothing to sneeze at here. If someone really got offended and called the cops and pressed the matter, congrats, you're now on the sex offender registry. However when I'm in the company of good folk that wouldn't take it seriously if they saw a bit extra (which I usually am), I always just wear my boots and socks beneath my kilt, it feels way better!