Curious about the "rules"

[Chas]

The "its just not done old boy" has developed simply because there are not any civilian dress rules and is generally used as a well meaning shot across the bows to warn of "rocks" ahead.

In another life we used to entertain regularly and on a reasonably large scale in private. Our guests were mostly my or my wife's friends, although there were on occasion a shooting party staying overnight. Now if these guests did not conform to the best of their ability, that, by the way, is all that is ASKED for, then they were stretching my friendship, generosity and enjoyment more than a wee tad!They would be imposing their will, desires on me, my wife and other guests in a selfish way and ultimately that really won't do and frankly I have plenty of other friends to invite for my enjoyment in the future.

It is making the effort that counts. One of my friends lost his house and contents due to a fire, but he and his wife made the effort to ring round our friends to borrow the kit that "would do" for our dinner. Now that is consideration and will never be forgotten.

Dinner suits(tux) were new once, white ties were new once, Top hat and tails were new once, the kilt as we know it was new once and so things will evolve , things will come and go all in good time and some things will stand the test of time. However to force the issue is arrogant, inconsiderate, unnecessary and quite correctly in my view "just not done".

I agree with Jock, but think that the case can be made more forcefully.

If you want to visit the Opera House in Vienna, you will be expected to wear white tie and tails. You choose not to, you don't get in - they have turned 'A Listers' away before for being incorrectly dressed. Individual choice, stand in the rain and listen to the music through closed doors or conform and be part of a glittering event.

If you want to enter the Royal enclosure at Ascot, you will be expected to wear a morning suit and top hat. You choose not to, you don't get in - they regularly get gentlemen to re-tie their neck-ties because they look sloppy.

In every city in every country in the world, there are venues with a dress code. Head covering off in Christian establishments - shoes off in Mosques. On every large building site and many factories there is a requirement for wearing protection and safety clothing.

We are surrounded by dress codes - some self imposed, some imposed by employer, some by spouse or by children, some by religion or by or by other organisation to which we belong, some by the activity in which we are engaged.

Putting on a kilt does not turn anyone into some kind of Über-rebel. For all levels of trousered dress there is a kilting equivalent. A Montrose or Sheriffmuir is accepted at the Opera House, an Argyll with silver buttons and five buttoned waistcoat is accepted at the Royal Enclosure and so it goes through all the standards of dress.

'The Rules', like the laws of the land are there to protect us. If a person breaks or ignores the rules, then best case, they will be excluded or themselves ignored. Worst case, added to that they will be laughed at.

Regards

Chas

[Jock Scot]

Yes, good points well made Chas..

[kiltedwolfman]

If you want to enter the Royal enclosure at Ascot, you will be expected to wear a morning suit and top hat. You choose not to, you don't get in - they regularly get gentlemen to re-tie their neck-ties because they look sloppy.

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.

I knew a man for many years of my life before he passed away who was by and large one of the wealthier men in my hometown. He often had great dinner parties and the like and always told guest to "come as you are". He made his fortune farming and grew up a working man rarely to be seen out of coveralls. Because of this outward appearance he was so often overlooked by the higher up crowds, or snubbed by the same. His common phrase was simple " appearance does not make the man". Now he was never a kilt enthusiast, but what I learned from him and his outlook was that if I treated people differently based on judgements made just by the eye then I am doing a disservice to them and to myself.

It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

PS. As an aside, I am thoughroughly enjoying the comments thusfar, certainly providing an ample supply of food for the buffet of thought.....hmmmm perhaps I'm getting hungry and thus the food refferences.

[JSFMACLJR]

Chas made a powerful statement. I could not have said it any better.

[Chas]

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.

Does it matter where or why a dress code was instigated? If it exists, then it exists. A person can be inappropriately dressed, but a wise man would not do it intentionally.

As a general rule of thumb, people don't usually get dressed up in their finest to get thoroughly drunk and have a good punch-up. If people are wearing expensive clothing, they are more likely to behave in a way that doesn't ruin them.

It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

I don't wish to be argumentative, but what are these things that are more important that are going by the wayside?

Regards

Chas

[JSFMACLJR]

Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual. .

The opera is ALWAYS more enjoyable when people dress. I cannot imagine attending any other way...if that is the tradition of the company. And yes, I would enjoy myself less if people were poorly dressed. If musicians and performers go to the trouble of doing their best, than shouldn't the audience do the same?

Shouldn't the motives of the individual who chooses to break with "tradition", the individual who decides he can wear blue jeans to the opera because he bloody well wants to--be questioned and challenged? Why does this person think the world revolves around him? Why does he think he doesn't have to conform with policies and traditions? Why should he be the "hero" and those who follow the polite customs of society and "decency" be the villains?

[CMcG]

This mode of thinking begs the question again. Why are certain types of dress mandated for certain occasions? Do white tie and tails make the enjoyment of the opera any better? does someone not appearing in the same make the rest of the attendees less apt to enjoy the music? Perhaps it is a total phylisophical question when one, more spcifically I, wonder why the outward appearance has become so overly important that judgement can be passed on a person based solely on it, and not on the individual.
<snip>

Actually, context does play a large role in people's perceptions of an event. Take, for example, an experiment done by the Washington post (article HERE).

A world class violinist played Bach on a million dollar instrument for one hour in a subway station. People hardly noticed.

When the same musician plays the same music in a concert hall for people in formal evening wear, it is quite different. People are in rapture.

At a formal music event, the type of clothing, modes of action, and specialized location function as symbols. People are putting on their best as a sign of respect for the performance and are also showing that they ready to pay attention. In order for a symbol to be understood without explanation, it must conform to standards. Hence, a dress code is in effect; people's outward appearance is a symbol of their belonging to the group and its expectations. The group is unified through appearance without having to ascertain the measure of each individual person.

<snip>
It seems to me sometimes that people get so wrapped up in the rightness or wrongness of kilt wear that the things that should be more important go by the wayside. Again this could be more of a personal phylisophical search at this point then an academic one.

In deconstructing the proclamations and rules announced by some members, it is worthwhile to start by examining their assumptions.

One school of thought is that civilians wearing the kilt are dressing in clothes belonging exclusively to the Highland tradition and that the kilt is only for special events of a Scottish nature or where THCD is explicitly welcome. By that assumption, if one is wearing the kilt at all, they should be doing so according to the "rules". It is a matter of primary importance to respect the fundamental nature of the kilt being a symbol of Scotland.

If one views the kilt in a more inclusive way, then they will see the matter differently. The assumption underlying this position might be that the kilt is just clothing and is appropriate for most any occasion, whether Scottish or not. In this case, one might be the only one wearing a kilt at a dressy event or have chosen to wear their kilt to informal events. Under this assumption, one has greater freedom of choice in how they dress but proportionately larger individual responsibility to still show respect for the event, host, and fellow attendees.

[artificer]

Actually, context does play a large role in people's perceptions of an event. Take, for example, an experiment done by the Washington post (article HERE).

What a fascinating and sad article. Thank you.

[MacLowlife]

KW, you mention the double Windsor knot. Presumably, someone invented it when the previous Windsor knot just wasn't big enough. The reason it was invented was to accentuate and flatter some man's physique. The evolution of nearly all "classic" clothing has to do with accentuating and flattering someone's physique. You can decide for yourself which is better- making a lot of people look pretty good or making a few people look REALLY good. Those two competing ideas bounce back and forth in cycles of nonconformity and conservatism. When people are feeling particularly individualistic, the trend is for people to select clothes that make themselves look good. Those same garments are less likely to make the great mass of people look good and when the mood switches towards group-oriented thinking, you see a predominant look that hides more flaws and flatters the less-than-perfect. There is a truism that every man looks good in a classic tuxedo. (Of course, what exactly a classic tuxedo is can be debated for weeks.) Not every man looks as good in, say, jeans and a tee shirt.

The evolutionary process of western clothing is not perfect- fashion and marketing intrude regularly, as do such out-of-orbit influences as the Baby Boom, where a particular segment of the population wrested control of fashion and refused to relinquish it at the end of "their turn" approximately 25 years later. Another example would be the prominence of a person whose wealth or influence is so great that their physical characteristics are imitated, despite conventional tastes which do not favor them.

Theoretically, people dress to attract mates. Men dress to exhibit their physical primacy and their wealth. Those who have more wealth may be able to display it in some less obvious way, just as those with more physical perfection may be able to be more casual about showing it off. Somewhere along the way, displaying wealth has come to include being able to have new clothes and the need to distinguish new clothes from old ones begat fashion.

SO, if you look like Brad Pitt or the young Sean Connery, you may be able to bend the rules. If you are Bill Gates you can do the same thing. Of course, there are places that looking really good or being really rich will not get you anywhere, as cited above. In those places, the rules are what you need.

[ForresterModern]

I agree with much of what has been said here, particularly that of Chas, Jock, and Jim.

To expand a bit on Chas's comments, there are places where the kilt is specifically NOT suitable wear, either because it may be dangerous (a machinery shop factory floor), socially questionable ( as a public childcare provider), or just plain out not allowed (like Royal Troon Golf Course in Scotland---sorry gents, couldn't pass up that opportunity for a little dig) whether or not is specifically stated up front.

I think you are trying to put your own values about dress relating to a person's worth ( the square peg) into the social context of how people are expected to dress for certain occasions, what is considered generally acceptable (the proverbial round hole), and unfortunately it won't fit. Not everybody in the world thinks like you, nor you like them, so oftentimes expectations are not understood. Hence why some of the conventions have arisen over time---white tie formal, black tie formal, semiformal, dress casual, etc... This is in some ways meant to ease the mind of those who are invited to engage in these events and activities. As stated before you may decide to not abide by the conventions, but may not be able to participate because of it (e.g., me in a kilt at Royal Troon), or change your attire to meet those conventions (me in pants at Royal Troon) so you can participate. Other times it may just be considered rude to step outside the boundaries of the conventions---showing up in cut off jean shorts, flip flops and without a shirt at a funeral for example. See the stickied threads about "10 Different levels of kilted dress" if you have any questions---it is a helpful guideline.

But in general most of us live our days in the grey areas of dress, and kilted dress is no different---lots of grey areas. Which is why most folks here say wear what you are comfortable wearing for the occasion. You may be a little overdressed, or possibly underdressed, but you will likely not be far off. And remember it is always easier to take a dressy outfit down a notch or two than it is to try to make your rugby jersey and sweatshirt fit up to a black-tie situation.

Just the fact that you are asking means you already have a fairly well developed sense of general right and wrong, which I believe will stead you well in your decisions about kilt wear. Kilt up and enjoy!

jeff