I think that's probably what a lot of it comes down to... But that being the case, why have SOME elements of cultural identification become commonplace outside their paradigm of origin and others not? Why jeans but not Russian fur hats? Why thong-style sandals (or flip-flops) but not kimono?
Very good point, and I have no idea why. Jeans don't necessarily have a unique cultural connotation, though, so it's no surprise that they have been adopted all over the world. They're simply a fashion garment, not a cultural garment.

I don't think many people associate flip-flops or thong sandals with any particular culture (even though they may have roots in, say, Japanese culture). Undoubtedly there was someone who originally decided to wear thong sandals in Western society and he got odd looks for a while until others caught on. And it might require a similar breaking-in period with things like sarongs. It takes a fashion pioneer to pave the way, although I'm sure many a fashion pioneer has failed miserably in such attempts.

And so we come full circle. And that is precisely what Jock Scott talks about when he looks at those of us who choose to wear kilts and wonders, "***." I would imagine that a good number of kilt-wearers on this forum have never visited Scotland... Which, while being perfectly acceptable in my books, is strange to some, and even blasphemous to others... Except that I don't believe we are playing at being Scots any more than I am playing at being Italian by driving a Vespa, wearing a long scarf, and saying Ciao... Now if I suddenly adopted an Glaswegian accent "just coz..." then I think that crosses the line between appreciating what a culture has to offer and being a poseur.
I think they key difference is that those of us who wear kilts often do so because we have a family history that includes Scottish culture. Jock Scot and other native Scots may not understand it, but here in the Americas, people do understand it. And so it's more acceptable (though not universally 'accepted') to wear cultural garb that one has an association with. But with no association through ancestry, living abroad, or the like, most people have a complete *** reaction.

Yup. But again, what baffles me more than anything is the selectivity of it... Why some aspects of cultural adoption are acceptable and commonplace and others are not. For instance, sarongs have most CERTAINLY been adopted as common attire outside of Southeast Asia.... for WOMEN. But not so much for men. Why not? I still think western society has this pervasive, morbid FEAR of all things feminine or that are associated with femininity. A subset of that is homophobia, but I think it transcends that. Certainly there are many more issues at play here, but as we are talking specifically about sarongs here in the context of a kilt-wearers' forum, which is a subset of a broad spectrum of male unbifurcated garments, I think it's relevant and fair to think about this issue and the impact that many traditional views on gender and sexual preference have not only on one's own wardrobe, but perception of others in public. This, more than anything I think infects the acceptability of wearing certain items, far more than the culture of origin.
Can't argue with that. Western society's lack of acceptance of anything approaching "feminine" is really quite illogical. I suppose we just have to chalk it up to "that's the way things are", even if we don't understand it or agree with it. On the bright side, though, the culture of acceptance is changing rapidly, and many things that would have been taboo when I was younger are now perfectly acceptable.