Kilts @ H&M

[Nighthawk]

I personally don't find the outfit becoming, and do not think it a kilt. In fact it is identical to an outfit my granddaughter (aged 2 1/2) wears which also has pleats in the front and leggings, only hers is not black and lacks that sassy, flirtatious slit up the side. Ooh, lah, lah.

Still looks like girl clothes.

My 11 year old son, who has not actually studied the kilt as in depth as those of us on this forum, said the same thing. Even a child can see that those are skorts... ith:

[CMcG]

<snip>
Here's what it says on our homepage: "This is not a forum for men looking to wear womens clothing nor is it a forum for other types of men's un-bifurbricated garments."

The reason I originally started this thread is precisely because of what the homepage says. H&M is calling these garments kilts and marketing them to men, ergo it is a suitable topic for discussion. While much of the reaction towards them has been negative, the opinions expressed continue to be lively and I hope everyone is enjoying the thread.

Just in case it wasn't clear, please don't think I posted this out of a desire to cross-dress or wear a MUG.

[RockyR]

deleted by Rocky

[ABG0819]

If you have to look like the models count me out...I actually have eaten at McDonalds in my lifetime. Come to think of it they may be skirts because only women should be that small.

[English Bloke]

Not my cup of tea certainly.

[Paul]

Marc Jacobs, with pleats in the back?

Now, this outfit seems to capture the modern kilt well, however, I do not like the other "kilts" with the pleats at the front.

[Kilt_Like_Objects]

It's replies like those I've read here that makes me feel hugely disparate from the traditional kilt community.

Fashion comes from catwalks. Get used to it.

It looks ridiculous on the catwalk because it's art. Art then trickles down to "real" clothing by way of these same designers.

The philabeg was once a novelty that originated in the mind of a tailor.

I honestly wish you guys would stop being so dismissive of anything "non-traditional" or adventurous.

Men can wear skirts... or skorts, or whatever.

I am aware that this is a forum for kilts and that the question asked begged a response but I am increasingly becoming sick of the hostility I see here.

Why the dismissiveness?

Why do pleats go in the back? Because someone did it once and you poor sheep are stuck following.

Sheep are good for growing wool - I see now that many of them WEAR wool too.

Not to name names but The Scot, you're the epitome of what I'm talking about.

Ian

[Jock Scot]

Alright, I admit that I know little about fashion, I know little about X dressing, I know little about modern attire and not a lot about modern art, but I am prepared to live and let live and I will defend any one the right of freedom of choice and speech.So let me exercise my rights of freedom of speech, within the forum rules of course, and let me just say that those things are just plain awful and cannot, in any circumstance, be described as a kilt or, dare I say, art.

[Tobus]

Oh my, this is not going to end well.

[Kilt_Like_Objects]

Alright, I admit that I know little about fashion, I know little about X dressing, I know little about modern attire and not a lot about modern art, but I am prepared to live and let live and I will defend any one the right of freedom of choice and speech.So let me exercise my rights of freedom of speech, within the forum rules of course, and let me just say that those things are just plain awful and cannot, in any circumstance, be described as a kilt or, dare I say, art.

Yeah... Sorry if this is offensive but I've heard that kind of statement - covering the bases with platitudes - many times before.

Often from those who give me crap about wearing a (traditional) kilt. They go on to say that "I suppose it's ok" after their pre-conceptions are challenged and they can't think of any further reasons to object.

It's a slippery slope and I'm feeling the gradient increase around here. If anyone could and should be open minded, I would hope kilt-wearers would be.

Why is there this "it's a kilt; it's masculine" - "it's not a kilt; it's a skirt; it's feminine" dichotomy?

Why?

If a man wears it as a man, it's masculine.

If a man wears it as a feminine garment, it's feminine.

You don't need the grand narrative of history to justify your decision to wear a kilt. This - IMHO - is the essence of all of the "is this masculine enough?" "traditional enough?" "mannish enough?" debate.

Wear it as though your b*lls are on fire and must be set free and you'll find it's masculine... even if it's a woman's wedding dress.

FYI, I don't consider myself a cross dresser - I'm always quite happy when I put on my clothes - but I will wear man-skirts that fit my measurements without checking to see if it's masculine enough.

Also, no one is denying your freedom of speech. Far from it.

I'm questioning your tacit disapproval of others' freedoms of speech.

"freedom of speech" is a two edged sword.

By condemning another skirt outfit as "girl's clothes" you really do sound like a self-loathing kilt-wearer.

As though if there was no tradition behind it, you wouldn't be caught dead in a skirt.

We can all still agree that kilts are just a specific style of skirt, yeah?

Why does that style of skirt scream "masculine" where others' skirt designs scream "feminine"?????

Honestly, why?

I know I'm referencing Nietzsche twice, but why the slave morality?