wearing hygienic underwear

[pbpersson]

Now.....I don't want to be really dense here....

Well, admittedly I can't help it and I'm always sort of dense so here it goes....

Several times on here people have said that when wearing a kilt you MUST wear underwear because it is the only way to be hygienic and if the kilt touches your skin then it is non-hygienic.

What is that all about? If the underwear touches my skin, isn't that also non-hygienic? Does that mean if anything touches my skin it is immediately contaminated and must be burned or something? :confused:

There are germs everywhere around me. The food I just had for lunch was loaded with germs and all sorts of things that are flying around here in the office because I had it sitting for quite a while on my desk cooling off while I was surfing the net. Do you know how many germs are on this keyboard I'm using now? If I put my finger in my mouth I could die!

The Scottish army didn't use underwear with their kilts and it seemed as though they did okay for hundreds of years.

I'm just trying to figure out why it is that underwear is so hygienic? Someone needs to explain this to me because I'm just not getting it.

However, let it be hereby known that I did not believe I could be affected by food poisoning until just a few years ago when I got some bad Chinese take-out. I thought I was somehow immune.

On the other hand, if we worry so much about germs can we end up missing a great deal of fun in life?


Phil in Phoenix

[Jimmy the Celt]

That is a great question, and one I can't answer myself. I'll leave that to others, because I have the same sort of thinking. If I were to wear the same pair of trousers two days in a row, I would feel like I was wearing dirty underwear [I've always been a regimental chap, even in trousers]. I ironed and put on the same kilt I wore yesterday [my only kilt as yet] and it seems as clean as it was when I put it on the day before. I think the kilt stays cleaner than trousers.

~James

[cavscout]

Try a search on going regimental or not and you'll probably find several threads on this topic.

I think the majority here prefer Regimental.

The early kilt wearers, while not wearing BVD's, did wear very long shirts which acted as a very early form of underwear.

Again, what's under your kiilt is entirely your business.

[Big Dave]

Again, what's under your kiilt is entirely your business.

And for who ever you're with at the time.

[mddock58]

It is MORE hygenic to wear underwear under a kilt, for the cleanliness of the kilt. Sweat and all else that can get on the kilt when regemental necessitates frequent cleaning, and depending on the kilt, cleaning it on your own may not be easy or effective.

In the old days.......they barely took baths, so who cares what was on the kilt!
Washing the kilt was a walk through the Loch!

It is just a statement on where we are now!

Take it as YOU want it, it's YOUR decision!

[pbpersson]

Sweat and all else that can get on the kilt when regemental necessitates frequent cleaning, and depending on the kilt, cleaning it on your own may not be easy or effective.

I have Utilikilts. I throw them in the washer, wait a while, and they are all clean agaiin.

If I was wearing $600 hand-sewn wool kilts of course I would wear underwear. I would be afraid of them touching anything at all, since they are dry-clean only.

[davedove]

Long tailed shirts WERE the undergarments of yore. By being next to the skin, the shirt would collect any bodily soils and was much easier to clean than the kilt.

Nowadays, it's easier to throw your underwear into the washer than a kilt.

[Colin]

I don't know how others are wearing their kilts, but the only time the kilt comes in contact with my skin (the back portion) is when I am sitting down. I can see the arguement about sweat and such on the wool, but honestly the kilt rarely touches skin. If I am wearing my wool kilt, I am likely dressed pretty nice, so why waste that by sitting for long periods of time? If I am wearing the kilt to work, it is likely a PV kilt, so who cares if I need to wash it more often.........it's machine washable

Otherwise the shirt is tucked in and the waistband of the kilt doesn't touch skin. The hang of a traditional kilt doesn't have pleats up against your butt or legs. I prefer regimental 99% of the time, any part of my body that the kilt touches is an area I was taught to keep clean from the toddler years, so I am not sure how underwear is more hygenic. I worry more about the mess on my hands from food or drinks I may have while kilted.

Everyone has their own opinion, that is just mine.

[Yaish]

I dont wear underwear under my kilt, never have. My kilts have never been soiled from my body either, any more so than anything else.

I wear my shirts tucked in so the part where the kilt definately touches the body, at the waistband and just below, are already covered by the shirt.
If I am standing then the rest of the kilt doesnt touch my the portion of my body that underwear would cover anyway.
It touches on the legs but not on the butt or groin. Even sitting you only have perhaps two or three more inches of skin touching the kilt than you would have with most underwear.

Its simply a myth that somehow not wearing underwear is going to make your kilt unhygenic. Not wiping your behind might make your kilt unhygenic, but the underwear doesnt have anything to do with that. You are far more likely to pick up germs on the OUTSIDE of your kilt from touching and sitting on everyday surfaces that you are from the inside of your body.
If you are like most people you probably shower or bath at least daily, and know how to use the bathroom properly. If you dont, then THAT is what makes you unhygenic, not the lack of underwear.

[Kilted KT]

the onlytime I've ever worn underwear with a kilt, it felt far less clean than the hottest day I've seen in any kilt while regimental. The undergarments trab sweat and other such things, keeping it close to the skin. Unless I'm in the woods trying to avoid an under-the-kilt mosquito bite, I'll be regimental.