Undies under the Kilt

[cwr89]

I do wear an undergarment. Boxer shorts to be accurate. I wear them because for me wearing a kilt (especially family tartans) should be done proudly and it should not offend anyone. and in public, I don't want to risk anything.

~Casey

[Monkey@Arms]

Your right, it's clothing, not a costume. I like that answer.

Thanks for all your replies.. I’ve been thinking about it, living in Chicago and not having a full heavy wool kilt it would be best to wear some undies, but a good wool one could be a bit more reliable and you could go without an underwear. About the kids, I don’t know, it seems that if you just use some common sense a flash could be avoided, never the less an accidental flash isn’t like porn, I think it would affect a child in a negative manor. Hell, they would probably find it amusing. Ha.

So to summarize, the answers seems to be in the 'auld days undergarments hadn't been invented, just long shirts. Regiments continued to go, well . . . regimental, because of tradition and ease of wear. And now a days many, but not all, choose to continue the tradition both because its, well . . . traditional, and for the glorious feeling of freedom that it provides.

Obuchiteck, I too am less concerned about scaring horses and children, unless I know I am going to be participating in some kind of athletic endevour, or there is some good reason to believe there is a real threat of exposure. Of course I don't live in the "Windy City" but so far I haven't had any problems with the elements.

Best regards,

Jake

[MacWage]

My comments on SMALL kids are in relation to MY OWN small kids (under 5). When I am PLAYING with them, I find myself in situations where I am glad I am wearing boxers. There are like when kids are running UNDER your legs (as a tunnel), CLIMBING on you, or have lean over to help them in a manner where it is simply EASIER not to "worry" about flashing anyone. It's the "human jungle gym" thing (easier to keep "decent" with boxers).
For kids even a LITTLE bit older, I wouldn't think TWICE about being regimental (unless with wife's request).

[kiltboytoo]

we Scots were always poor, who could afford linens? A kilt was your cloths, your backpack and your bedding.

Now adays, I think it's all about the ladies

[Mark Keeney]

You need to wear underwear to protect the "boys" when wearing those dreadful pants with the big thick seam mashing as you walk and sit.
Kilts don't have a crotch seam from which to be protected.

enough said about mashing.

[Archangel]

Every once in a while, I get drawn into talking about my undies. Life is weird. Anyway, the "regimental" position has a history but that doesn't make it a requirement. Modern technology has really done wonders with wicking materials so I've really embraced it. When I work on the floor, it's as a welder at 35°C (you do the conversion) ambient not counting humidex. I'm also wearing jacket, nomex coveralls, shirt and trousers, yes, I know hot. I've switched all my underwear to Wilson's Ultra, first choice, or Jockey Jox, second choice.

They're briefs because I like them and when worn with a kilt works quite well. They're present in case of accidents, of flips, but high enough to keep the mystery.

As far as heat goes, once the temperature gets to near 40°C, you're not feeling much cooler in shorts and tshirt than in my welder setup. Just different fluid requirements.

And that's all the talk I'll do about that subject for this year.

[emolas]

I wouldn't say that there was ever a conscious decision on the part of Highlanders along the lines of, "We're not going to wear underwear!" And the reason is (speaking about the 'historic" period now, pre-1800) Highlanders WERE actually using the same underwear as European men elsewhere, that being long shirt tails. Separate drawers came later.
The underwear of that period for trouser and britches wearers - as well as the kilted - was your shirt tails tucked between your legs. Some even had buttons to facilitate this practice (shirt tails were knee length in those days).
So, later when underwear/drawers evolved as a separate garment (early 1800's), the backwards Highlanders simply clung to their old practice of their shirt tails being their only undergarment....

I was actually considering putting buttons or velcro or something on my shirt tails so I could do them up like a baby's 'onesie'. This would have the dual benefit of concealing the merchandise and keeping my shirt tucked in.

[GlassMan]

I have to agree that when you plan on dancing you should put on underwear.

At my wedding, my bestman decided to go regimental for his first kilt-wearing experience. However, during the dancing at the reception he spun around a bit too quickly while with my MOTHER and showed everyone there pretty much everything there. However, he did get a standing ovation from the old ladies from my church.

[The Frumious B.]

Completely off Topic...

Great Avatar, Kiltboytoo.

[Martin S]

I remember reading ... black briefs were mentioned as the only "allowable" undergarment.
... it struck me as funny though.

Funny?

Black is the only colour that goes with any tartan.
Black is discrete, and, being different from the traditional idea that underwear should be white, black briefs don't evoke the idea of underwear when they show.
And your underwear will show, gentlemen, (or lack thereof) whatever you may be doing. Simply sitting down on a chair will likely tell people the other side of the room what you are wearing.

But I agree; it's nice to do without when it's warm!

The original post was asking about historic reasons for all this, niot about what we do today. The only underwear I have ever heard about in the 19th c, was long johns (certainly no briefs or boxers!) which could obviously not be worn with a kilt. Long shirttails were sufficient to protect both skin and outergarments.

Martin