Some thoughts from Non-Kilt folks...

[Ugly Bear]

Ugly Bear and kiltedjaz, take a couple of deep breaths and agree to disagree.

No.

If you took time to read my post properly...what I said was...
'they're not really kilts in the most accepted form of the meaning of the word'

I did read your post properly. The definition of what a kilt is is no longer so narrow. And good thing, too. Keep the definition narrow, and the kilt will go the way of the toga.

[bubba]

Keep the definition narrow, and the kilt will go the way of the toga.

You mean it'll become party attire at fraternity houses?

[Blu (Ontario)]

You mean it'll become party attire at fraternity houses?

If the college knew the truth about kilts and the lassies... they already would be!

.

[Ugly Bear]

You mean it'll become party attire at fraternity houses?

Well, substitute the word "attire" with "costume," and you're correct. Compound that with the fact that fraternities hardly ever HAVE toga parties -- and if they do, it's an homage to the movie Animal House instead of Greek culture -- and you see the dilemma.

Leave kilts as an unalterable cultural artifact, and they will die. People will know what they are, but they'll hardly ever wear them.

The Utilikilt is necessary, as are other modern variations. They make kilt-wearing practical and open. Anyone in the world can wear them, whenever they please. If they keep kilt-wearing vital, they will make the Scottish national dress a living thing.

[macwilkin]

Leave kilts as an unalterable cultural artifact, and they will die. People will know what they are, but they'll hardly ever wear them.

The Utilikilt is necessary, as are other modern variations. They make kilt-wearing practical and open. Anyone in the world can wear them, whenever they please. If they keep kilt-wearing vital, they will make the Scottish national dress a living thing.

As one who wears his kilt as a "unalterable cultural artifact", I respectfully disagree with this statement. The traditional kilt has been around for a quite a while, and for those of us who see it as a "cultural/heritage" symbol, it will always been a garment with significance and meaning to be honoured. And why must wearing a kilt on a regular basis be the only mark of a "real kilt wearer"?

And as far as Utilikilts go, It has always been my understanding that the owners of UK never based the garment on a traditional Scottish kilt anyway -- so the claim that they will somehow save kilts from extinction seems to be a moot point, since they are "not related". I would argue that Rocky or Steve kilts are more appropriate for that claim, since they are modern versions of a traditional kilt.

No UK-bashing here, though -- to each his own. It's not my thing, but for others, it is, and that's great in my book.

Regards,

Todd