Kilts @ H&M

[Redshank]

my dear old mum used to tell me when I was a boy, "if you haven't got anything nice to say, say nothing"

That said my silence on this thread speaks volumes

[ABG0819]

Here is my 2 cents worth and given it is just an opinion. Words have definitions. A kilt is a masculine garment by definition and it is built to a specific design...ie double aproned, pleated in the back so on and so forth. I dislike seeing words used to describe things that they have absolutly no relationship too. Political Correctness always falls down that road. I don't care if you wear a kilt, a skirt, shorts, pants or a wedding dress but do not call your wedding dress a kilt. As far as the homosexual comments. I am not gay because I wear a kilt and because someone else choses to wear a wedding dress doesn't mean they are gay (though undoubtedly some in both groups are). If memory serves homosexuality deals more with things that go on when the kilt (or dress) is removed therefore how can we say someone is gay because of what they are wearing.

My $.02 Take it for what it's worth (probably less than the proverbial two pennies)

Graham

[auld argonian]

H&M is just a store that sells clothing. Clothing, in and of itself, has no agenda. What you wear has nothing to do with your orientation. A man's a man for a' that.

Best

AA

[Lyle1]

There is a great difference between hostility and disdain or dismissal.


"

Synonyms for hostility: antagonism, unfriendliness, resentment, aggression

Synonyms for disdain: scorn, contempt, derision, condescension

I'm not sure I see much difference. The attitude that is conveyed would seem to be the same.

[Jock Scot]

Synonyms for hostility: antagonism, unfriendliness, resentment, aggression

Synonyms for disdain: scorn, contempt, derision, condescension

I'm not sure I see much difference. The attitude that is conveyed would seem to be the same.

There seems to be a world of difference between the two, to my mind. Hostility is "active", whilst disdain is "passive".

[CMcG]

I'm with Jock, they are similar but not the same.

Hostility has the connotation of active negativity toward something, usually in the form of an attack, verbal or otherwise.

Disdain is more of a negative attitude toward something, mostly in an expressed or implied opinion.

Hostility is not OK on the forum, but politely expressed disdain usually is.

[Phil]

There seem to be two differing views going on here, one is that the garments should not be called a kilt and the other that wearing them in some way defines the wearer’s sexuality. I am not sure that there is an exclusive definition of a kilt beyond it being a form of pleated skirt derived from the national dress of Scottish men which is generally recognised as being made from tartan cloth. As to clothing defining anything about the wearer’s sexual orientation simply by the way it is styled is straying onto much less safer ground and probably says more about the person’s own prejudices than anything else. Of course we have to recognise that society demands much greater conformity of behaviour, appearance and dress from men than it does of women and this is no doubt where much of the seeming prejudice derives from. Good heavens, we even have contributors here who cannot accept long-established and traditional highland dress items such as lace jabots and buckle brogues which they equate to more feminine attire, describing them as “mary janes” and the suchlike. Of course manly, thigh-slapping shoes such as the Glenfinnan type are OK.
I think what Jock, myself and others are really trying to say is that there is Scottish highland dress and then there are all sorts of different styles of other skirt-like garments which, because they are mostly being worn by men, are described as kilts to get away from any suggestion of cross-dressing.
By the way and as an aside, is there really such a word as "unbifurbricated" which appears on the opening page of the site. I look at it every time I visit and say to myself I really must ask about it. The word couldn't really be "unbifurcated" could it?

[macwilkin]

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

Respectfully, Ian -- you're not displaying the same tolerance you're demanding from those of us who are more traditional in the way we wear Highland attire. Respect is a two-way street.

T.

[Arlen]

This is just a gentle message from one of the Mods:

Xmarks the Scot prides itself on being a community. While everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions, such opinions should be aired respectfully and without insult.
Please bear this in mind before posting a reply.

[Monkey@Arms]

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.

I loved this. Indeed.

Best regards,

Jake