I wonder if this will apply to kilts?

**Kilted KT** · 9th August 06, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by dragoninterrupted

It simply amazes me that women, who have demanded equal rights with men and to shed the moniker of "the weaker sex" insist on holding to natural concepts of decency for themselves thus maintaining a "seperate place" in society from the men they wish to be equal with. I am by no means a shovinist, but it seems to me that the feminist movement has a few biases it needs to shed if it is truly to attain its goal (which I think is nebulous at best to most of its adherents).

James

it is a common problem of any group that seeks "equality" to another group. They want all the rights and priviledges they supposedly don't have, but they are very quick to remind that they are "oppressed" or something like that, and demand special treatment. Very common problem.

**GTRMAN** · 9th August 06, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by morrison

10 to 1 they had fingers still wet and warm from the coffee and cookie crumbs on the button row! Were any of them in a kilt?

LOL.. No.. This happened about 10 years ago. Still makes me angry, though.

toadinakilt · 9th August 06, 04:44 PM

a friend of mine on our ireland trip wore his kilt around...got kilt checked a few times...

one girl asked him very politely if she could ascertain for herself whether or not he was a "true scot" as she said...and afterwards she hugged him...

it was a very interesting evening...

**Jimmy the Celt** · 9th August 06, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by toadinakilt

a friend of mine on our ireland trip wore his kilt around...got kilt checked a few times...

one girl asked him very politely if she could ascertain for herself whether or not he was a "true scot" as she said...and afterwards she hugged him...

it was a very interesting evening...

Now, if a girl asked politely, I'd be likely to oblige, depending on the circumstances--for instance, I wouldn't want to offend any by-standers. If you think about it, the manner in which one "exposes" oneself can be quite innocent; afterall, we are not (or shouldn't be) a great lot of tittering imbeciles. The circumstances, and one's disposition, determine the maturity of such an action, which can be idle curiosity, or goodnatured humor rather than crass lewdness. Wouldn't you agree?

James

**Alan H** · 9th August 06, 07:11 PM

Since I've told the story twice on the board, I won't tell it again, but I'll refer to it....

.....the woman at the wedding party of my good mate Phil MacFarlane who followed me around with a portable camera, trying to take pictures up my kilt.

It'd be great to see her in the squad car for it.

**Rex_Tremende** · 9th August 06, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Alan H

.....the woman at the wedding party of my good mate Phil MacFarlane who followed me around with a portable camera, trying to take pictures up my kilt..

I'm also working on this line for the persistent ones: "If you keep that up, how do you feel about showing your friends the photos from your own colonoscopy tomorrow?"

Rex, in line for the "Assertiveness Training" class

**pbpersson** · 9th August 06, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Alan H

.....the woman at the wedding party of my good mate Phil MacFarlane who followed me around with a portable camera, trying to take pictures up my kilt.
.

I don't get it.....if she was at a wedding then she was probably wearing a dress.....

Was she going to let you see a picture up her dress at least?

Isn't there a bit of wisdom that says "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?" If people can take pictures up her garment maybe she shouldn't be trying to take pictures up other people's garments. It seems so ridiculous.

**efer** · 10th August 06, 06:56 AM

Isn't there a bit of wisdom that says "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?"

It's sad but true: Common sense is not that common. A few folks seem to think that seeing others wearing a kilt gives them extra freedom :rolleyes: of their senses.

Cheers

**Chris Webb** · 10th August 06, 03:05 PM

Sorry guys, this law is meant to stop folks from taking pictures without the knowledge of the person being photographed for the purpose of publishing for any reason, but particularly on the web. It's aimed at sites like Upskirt.com and the dirtbags that procure their material by hiding cameras in shopping bags and toilets.

As a kiltman I personally enjoy the kilt checking phenomenon and am more than able to distinguish between the pornographer and the tipsy gal playing a bit of "slap and tickle". We don't need laws to accomplish what we can do ourselves. Flirts are not criminals to be prosecuted and that's not what this law is about. And, yes, I've had a gal take a picture up my kilt with her cell phone ... with out a flash she couldn't even see past my knees. No harm done.

Given our boards' ability to self police it may well be time for those who don't like to be kilt checked to stop going to the places kilt checks are commonly executed: bars/dances/festivals where booze is enjoyed. I also contend that those men who don't want to be kilt checked should nicely decline like a gentleman should without the threat of jail time. After all it's our own faults for teasing the general population with our constant "Regimental" banter that fuels this phenomenon to begin with.

Do we really need a law to protect us? Do we really want to be treated like women? Does it speak well of kilted men to be demanding the same protections afforded women? According to the National Geographic even a Baboon knows the difference between a rather harmless human female and the naturally more aggressive/protective human male.

Kiltmen who are aggressively kilt checked are putting out the vibe that they are at least open to it or normal women wouldn't be kilt checking them. It's nobody's fault but their own and it's all of our faults for ensuring the whole world knows that most of us are naked under our kilts. Please, let's stop acting surprised that woman are turned on by the notion of a "Regimental Man". Between the Blue Ribbon Poem and the pics of Scottish Soldiers with kilts blown high it is us, Men, it's us.

There are those on this forum who have admitted to never being kiltchecked, I applaud them because they don't need legal protections in order to contol the situations they find themselves in. These men, by virtue of their own class, their own kiltmanship and their own character are able to maintain their own privacy and ..........

Kilt On!

Chris Webb

**Chris Webb** · 10th August 06, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by efer

It's sad but true: Common sense is not that common. A few folks seem to think that seeing others wearing a kilt gives them extra freedom :rolleyes: of their senses.

Cheers

Actually Common Sense is what encourages kilt lifting. If a woman puts on a skirt, at or above the knee, and then incinuates that she is not wearing panties then Common Sense dictates that she is on the make and possibly even an exhibitionist.

If men and women are the same then the very same thoughts would be in the head of any female who saw you in your kilt. The kilt itself incinuates that you are not wearing underwear given that the general population has been led to believe this. After all, everybody knows what a "real Scot" wears under his kilt, it's all in the poem. You are in a knee length kilt, no underwear (perception is reality) ... do the math.

Until the perception of kilted men being without underwear is banished from the public mind then Kilt Lifting will continue, law or no law. The only way to end this cycle is for all of us to very publicly give up going Regimental. We think it's an issue of privacy, it's an issue of public decency ... polite society expects underwear under skirted garments. We are simply treated the way folks think we want to be treated.

I, for one, will continue to pay the price of Freedom, freedom to go Regimental, by simply dealing with it on a case by case basis. Of course, I'm a cad, right? So it's easy for me to ....

Kilt On.

Chris Webb