Quote Originally Posted by James
Quite a fascinating subject, but are we being a bit too sensitive and so losing track?

Possibly to many, certainly myself a kilt is a specific garment-just as a Greek Fustanella or a Fijian's Sulu is a specific garment. A garment linked by form to a certain tribal/clan - ethnic grouping.

However the word kilt appears to have subsumed to itself certain garments that deviate considerably from the original: be it of form and or material. An example would be the Utilikilt.

At this point it gets nasty, I can see every good reason for a man wearing a Utilikilt-for whilst I do not have one, it appears a very practical and sensible garment. However should it be seen as a sensible man's skirt or a kilt?

If it is seen as a man's skirt, then it opens up the argument for other possibly cheaper materials and designs-albeit made for men and entirely distanced from any suggestion of cross dressing.

However if it is seen as a kilt, then all the arguments regarding cost, materials-the use of tartan and so on will persist.

Can I suggest that the time has come to bite the bullet, and consider accepting the fact that all too often what is termed a kilt, is in fact a masculine skirt. A form of dressing that is entirely logical, and good sense.

James
I read somewhere that Steven from UK called them "Man-Skirts" but calling them that would prevent many men from buying them. I have to agree. regardless of the opinions we still have baggage in the definition of words. until such time as that baggage goes away we need to accept the term kilt is growing to encompass more than the "Traditional Scottish Kilt".