Undies under the Kilt

[Kiltman]

Remember, the kilt is a garment, not a costume. . . . . If you want to an undergarment, wear one.

Yes, the kilt is first and foremost a garment. Since I wear it when I want and treat the decision when to wear it like what pair of pants to wear, I use the same standards of modesty and hygiene with a kilt as without a kilt. There is no rule except common sense.

[CaberDave]

What some say is a good time to wear under garments under a kilt

4. Athletic bottoms for competing in athletic events at the Highland Games.

I wear the Under Armour Compression shorts (black) to compete in.

[Quaich Maker]

I just wanted to find out why men still don’t wear undies and where did the regulation start from ?

Its not a case of when the 'regulation' started , but when undies started .
The so called ' going regimental ' is in fact Traditional , as in
relative to the age of the kilt , in any form , underwear is new to the world .


QM

[Perldog007]

Incredible!
Do they really thinik that children grow up with no inkling about people's anatomies?


Martin

C'est La Guerre....

This kind of unfortunate contemporary school of thought is just another reason to be flexible with your own school of thought on this subject.

[Perldog007]

I presume that there are no "winkied" public statues in the entire state? I have seen some interesting examples of some very strange state laws but this one is especially so and extremely subjective.

Americans can be especially hardcore on this matter. I used to be the security chief at Union Station in D.C. . We have Statues of Roman soldiers around the main hall. Apparently the powers that were of that day had the arms and sheilds of the statues repositioned and rather unkind "surgery" performed on said figures .

The story goes that the German sculptor was so perturbed at the prudishness and poor taste of his hosts that he left a "present" on one of the statues. However it happened there is indeed an "unmodified" centurion standing guard over the main hall.

I am happy we have a place where we can discuss social implications of making this kind of wardrobe choice, but saddened that we find it necessary to do so. my personal view is that anyone who looks up a man's kilt deserves what they get.

I was raised to turn my head if another person experienced a moment where their modesty was compromised. Especially if it was a Lady experiencing the difficulty. If Grandma had had a wider audience this thread would have never started

[MysticMead]

I can think of another good reason to wear undies under the kilt... cats... we have a Siamese that attempted to climb my leg ONCE... had a good talk with the cat... explained that what she saw was NOT a new toy to play with...think the conversation went something like... if you try that crap again I'm going to teach you how to fly.... if she tries again, I'm getting a dog...

[Phil]

I read the rules and I couldn’t tell if this would be a taboo subject or not. If I broke the rules I apologize, please feel free to delete or move. I won’t be offended.

I have a legitimate question regarding what’s under the kilt. I’m not asking if you do or don’t wear underwear, (I don’t want to know) what I’m curious is, is there a legitimate reason not to wear underwear? Where did it start and why is it that we don’t wear underwear today? When I hike and do certain things I think I would prefer some support.

There is no legitimate reason to wear or not to wear anything under the kilt. It is a purely personal decision on the part of the wearer in the same way that others may choose whether or not to wear underwear under (prepare yourselves for this) ..pants. I do think, however, that as has been said already, there is no excuse for indecent exposure in the presence of ladies and underwear should certainly be worn when dancing. On a related subject can anyone enlighten me as to why American stores sign their underwear sections as "Intimate Apparel"? Is this just an example of two nations separated by a common language as Churchill said or more a national coyness and reserve?

[Mr. MacDougall]

On a related subject can anyone enlighten me as to why American stores sign their underwear sections as "Intimate Apparel"? Is this just an example of two nations separated by a common language as Churchill said or more a national coyness and reserve?

A little of column A, a little of column b?

First of all, it's mostly just women's underthings that are labeled such... or at least, I can't recall having seen men's labeled that way. And yes, some of it is a "sex sells" kind of thing. But some of it is just that that's the way it is.

[Phil]

A little of column A, a little of column b?

First of all, it's mostly just women's underthings that are labeled such... or at least, I can't recall having seen men's labeled that way. And yes, some of it is a "sex sells" kind of thing. But some of it is just that that's the way it is.

Thanks for that. I was just wondering and, as you say, it sounds more appropriate in the context of women's stuff. Better get off this subject before it gets banned.

[cacunn]

I believe and have no historical data to support this opinion that there was a practical reason not to wear anything under the kilt when the kilt was first worn in Scotland. At the time kilts started cotton, if it was available in Scotland it would have been very expensive. The same would have been true of linen and silk. Because of the expense I don't think you would have wanted to hide such an expensive cloth.

On the other hand wool was readily available. I don't know about you but if the choice is between "tight" woolen underwear or being free under a loose kilt, I'll take freedom any day. The thought of scratchy wool underwear makes me shrink in fear.