I would like to submit a proposal to the membership

[Nathan]

This is really not that complex and it doesn't just apply to kilt attire. Consider what people wear and have worn to work.

Historic

Historic has been left behind by time. The look is definitely outmoded and to revive it would be to affect a deliberately retro look. You may also be confused as someone who is involved in a theatrical "period" production. Notwithstanding this fact, you may wear it because you think folks dressed better back then or you identify strongly with that period.





Traditional
The traditional look isn't out of style, it's just not on the cutting edge of style. It has stood the test of time and until fashion has moved on, it remains the safest choice.





Borderline - forum fodder
This in between stuff is what interesting threads are made of. It's a twist on traditional but not so bold as to be way out there. It may or may not supplant the traditional and become the new traditional as it owes an obvious debt to the traditional and the change, though noticeable, is gradual.


Fashion forward (aka contemporary or modern etc...)

The fashion forward looks may or may not make the grade. They'll become the norm or go the way of bell bottoms or platform shoes, only time will tell. Rebels, people who want to stand out, people who don't have to conform to a dress code or people who enjoy being on the cutting edge might enjoy these choices. They are riskier and some traditional people will not like the look while others will wish they were bold enough to pull it off.




A lot of work has been done on defining these areas in recent weeks. I don't think it's credible to claim that traditional is undefinable anymore. Actually, I think it has been more clearly defined than any other section.

If you're trying to stop this from happening, changing the names of the sections won't likely achieve that result:

[creagdhubh]

Very clear and concise, Nathan. Cheers, mate!

[Steve Ashton]

I think that it may show the bias I have been referring to if you notice above that anything not historical or traditional is described as "forum fodder" and contemporary and modern are lumped in with "Fashion Forward" and described with "The fashion forward looks may or may not make the grade. "

To those of us who wear the kilt everyday, and try to look good while respecting the kilt, this type of bias could come across very wrong.

This is just these types of comments, and the perception from the traditionalists, that I have been talking about.

[Nathan]

I think that it may show the bias I have been referring to if you notice above that anything not historical or traditional is described as "forum fodder" and contemporary and modern are lumped in with "Fashion Forward" and described with "The fashion forward looks may or may not make the grade. "

To those of us who wear the kilt everyday, and try to look good while respecting the kilt, this type of bias could come across very wrong.

This is just these types of comments, and the perception from the traditionalists, that I have been talking about.

New ideas sometimes catch on and become classic and sometimes they don't. If you're a trend setter, that's the risk you take. This is a fact and has nothing to do with bias or attitude.

Forum fodder isn't an insult. It just means that we need to have grey areas so there will be interesting things to discuss on here. If there is no room for variance in opinion and everything is codified, the threads will be mighty boring.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with being fashion forward. It is riskier, but with high risk sometimes comes high reward.

I think fashion forward is a better description than contemporary or modern since, as has been repeated on every page of this thread, traditional clothes are still contemporary and are still modern.

Cutting edge fashion is defined by innovators and risk takers. Sometimes their ideas revolutionize how things are done and sometimes their ideas are simply fads. As I said above, only time and perspective help us figure out one from the other.

On the other hand, I think implying that traditional clothing went out of style in the 1970s or somehow isn't contemporary or modern are just the kinds of comments that show a different bias and come across as very wrong from my perspective.

Nowhere in this or any other thread have I said or implied new approaches to kilt fashion are wrong or shouldn't be worn or anything of the sort. I have only ever said that they are not yet traditional. Facts aren't bias.

[CMcG]

If this thread has shown anything, it is that everyone has their biases and that people interpret words according to those biases. The dictionary can tells us what words like historical, traditional, or modern denote in a general sense, but when we apply those words to the specifics of kilt wear, people apparently interpret them with different connotations. Perhaps this discussion would be better served by three threads where people who self-identify in these broad areas can come up with their own sub-forum names and descriptions...

On the other hand, here is a reasonably neutral (politically correct?) sub-forums list with parallel structure. I hope no-one would be offended by these, but are they too vague to be useful?

Old Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing kilts as they used to be worn in the past.

Established Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing kilts as they have been worn for a long time.

New Kilt Wear: This section is for discussing kilts as they are becoming worn recently.

Another thing this thread has shown is that there is bound to be overlap and grey area that will just end up in General Kilt Talk anyway. There are two things I would like to point out, which are important regardless of what we call the style sub-fora because there are so many areas of the forum that cut across different approaches.

First, if one has the fortitude to wear a kilt—particularly outside of contexts where they are common—one would do well to not let theirself be bothered too much by other people's comments. Second, this forum is called X Marks the SCOT, where the Saltire is prominently featured on the top of every page; we are talking about a garment that originates in Scotland and is that country's national attire; and it would therefor be disingenuous to try to divorce all the discussion from cultural traditions or ethnic/national identity, as has been suggested in several posts of this thread.

[creagdhubh]

First, if one has the fortitude to wear a kilt—particularly outside of contexts where they are common—one would do well to not let theirself be bothered too much by other people's comments. Second, this forum is called X Marks the SCOT, where the Saltire is prominently featured on the top of every page; we are talking about a garment that originates in Scotland and is that country's national attire; and it would therefor be disingenuous to try to divorce all the discussion from cultural traditions or ethnic/national identity, as has been suggested in several posts of this thread.

I absolutely love your concluding statement here, Colin. Very, very well said.

Cheers,

[Steve Ashton]

As the OP

This thread is just going on and on for no apparent reason and is no longer on the original topic.

So perhaps its time to close it.