At what point doe's a Kilt ....

[Robinhood]

A kilt is a man's garment, taylored to accentuate his
masculine attributes. A woman's skirt is taylored
to accentuate her feminine qualities.

Women's skirts are generally thinner, so you can
see more of the wearer's natural shape. Men's
kilts are of thicker fabric, pleated in layers that
increase the thickness. They hold their shape
more than revealing the wearer's natural shape.

Women's skirts also reveal the motion of the
flesh. They wiggle and jiggle with the motion
of the hips. Men's kilts don't wiggle and jiggle.
They move more as a pendulum does, reflecting
the general movements of the body.

[Canuck]

When wearing my traditional kilt I get nice kilt but tend to get the "Nice Skirt" comment a number of times. However, when I wear my Contemporary kilt I always get "Nice Kilt."..or "never saw a leather kilt before,",,never "Nice Skirt" so I must be wearing a kilt if all the folk I interact with call it a kilt. Which suits me just fine.
Mods please delete if I crossed the line...
Cheers
Robert

[Colin]

A kilt is a man's garment, taylored to accentuate his
masculine attributes. A woman's skirt is taylored
to accentuate her feminine qualities.

By that rational all Caftans, Cassocks, Dashikis, Fustanellas, Ghos, Lavas, sarongs, etc are kilts because they are tailored and made for a man? Sorry, I don't buy that. It's been said a million times. All Kilts are skirts, but not all skirts are kilts.

I think we are over thinking the question, and have therefore blured the lines of thinking. Are traditional Scottish made wool kilts classed as a kilt?...of course. Along with great kilts, they are "kilts" in my opinion.

Are kilts made from Polyviscose or other man made materials a kilt?Are UKs, Amerikilts, Etc, etc kilts?...sure, they are different, but they are still a kilt.

Are they the same as a traditional wool Scottish made kilt? No, but they are an adaptation of the traditional kilt (yes I consider 200 years tradition) to fit the needs of today's men and lessen the economic strain for those wanting an alternative to an 8 yard wool kilt. So do we call them a kilt? of course we do...they are part of the kilt family.

Let's stop over thinking the "what is a kilt?" issue and just accept that there are variations in the kilt family and each person has their own preferance. Debating the "what is a kilt?" question will just lead back to the my kilt is better than your kilt way of thinking. Some people want to see the kilt as a viable alternative for today's man, but that will never with in fighting and mudding of the "what is a kilt" waters. How can one promote kilt wearing when we as a group (a pretty knowledgable one if I do say so myself) spend too much time debating a moot point. It's like listening to my wife and my mother in law debating

[GTRMAN]

(Panache in Sports Announcer voice)

"...and GTRMAN takes the ball from midcourt... he's heading straight up the middle...he's at the freethrow line...he's going for a layup...GTRMAN shoots...and...he...SCORES! The crowd goes wild!"


Sometimes short and sweet does the job best!

Cheers

Thank you... Thank you very much...

[cavscout]

While many of us here know what a kilt "is" and "is not" as a group, the mission statement of this forum says it is for the discussion of kilts alone. Not any other un-bifurcated garment. So to ensure we are performing our mission we need to be able to communicate effectivly what a kilt "is" and "is not" to educated and un-educated alike (in reagrds to kilts that is). So it really is a very important issue. A religious person could not be an effective witness in his religion if he could not address the false issues as well as the true issues of his beliefs, so can we not effectively communicate about kilts if we cannot say what is not a kilt.

I agree that "I know one when I see one" and "I know what is not one". As we see though, there are companies out there selling feminine skirts as kilts and that detracts from the symbolisim and meaning of the kilt.

These are kilts (the ones on the male )
These are not kilts

This is a kilt
This is not a kilt

These are kilts
These are not kilts

So, I come back to the wearers intent. If you want to be perceived as feminine you are not wearing a kilt, if you want to be perceived as masculine you are wearing a kilt.

P.S. I'm not trying to be argumentative. This is just a discussion that comes up farily often, especially as we get a large influx of new kilt wearers, and is entirely within the criteria of the forum and is not detracting from any other thread. So, why not let those who want to kick around a definition, do it here in a civil manner.

[possingk]

While many of us here know what a kilt "is" and "is not" as a group, the mission statement of this forum says it is for the discussion of kilts alone. Not any other un-bifurcated garment. So to ensure we are performing our mission we need to be able to communicate effectivly what a kilt "is" and "is not" to educated and un-educated alike (in reagrds to kilts that is). So it really is a very important issue. A religious person could not be an effective witness in his religion if he could not address the false issues as well as the true issues of his beliefs, so can we not effectively communicate about kilts if we cannot say what is not a kilt.

I agree that "I know one when I see one" and "I know what is not one". As we see though, there are companies out there selling feminine skirts as kilts and that detracts from the symbolisim and meaning of the kilt.

These are kilts (the ones on the male )
These are not kilts

This is a kilt
This is not a kilt

These are kilts
These are not kilts

So, I come back to the wearers intent. If you want to be perceived as feminine you are wearing a skirt, if you want to be perceived as masculine you are wearing a kilt.

Great summation cavscout

[Colin]

So, why not let those who want to kick around a definition, do it here in a civil manner.

Is that not what is happening?

[cavscout]

It is.

That statement was not intended to sound like "leave me alone, I'm not doing anything wrong."

I intended it to sound like, "hey guys, why don't we hang out over here and talk about definitions." (boy that sounds geeky)

[Colin]

I hear ya.

I guess my take on the whole issue is that when people sit around and muddle about definitions, is that the definitions become murky. I think we are an extremely bright group and that despite the odd bout of infighting, that the majority of us are all coming from the same direction. It's hard enough when marketers are working against us in the hopes of making a buck. Do we need to be confusing ourselves by over examining it?

By the way, if you want to discuss the definition, by all means, this is just my opinion on the definition of "kilt". I will trust the history of hundreds of years over an internet site looking for my money.

[turpin]

Can you go by whether or not it is tartan? No, because even though most kilts are of a tartan material, solid color kilts have been worn as long as kilts have existed. Though they never have been as popular, we have portraits of people in solid kilts from as early as 1635!

So according to Mr. Newsome, solid kilts predate the clan tartan system by at least 150 years.