Have You Ever Been Falsly Accused of Flashing When Kilted?

**Highland Logan** · 18th March 08, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Yaish

Why? I don't flash them without underwear, so what would be gained but some loss of comfort for me?

I think this all boils down to selfishness. A person can not be selfish in a society, and still expect to have all of the rights and privileges that that society has to offer. There are rules to being a kind, descent and moral person, while still being you "own" man. Common decency that one should wear under garments around women and children, and during activities where exposure is possible can not be too much to ask surely? Or do you care so little for others?

Frank

**Alan H** · 18th March 08, 09:53 AM

I'm not sure how this got to be a combative thread. It's a small issue, really....to wear undergarments or not to wear them when kilted.

To get back to the issue of being falsely accused of flashing someone and how to handle it, I'd say that it very much depends on the situation and who is doing the accusing.
If it was my sister in law I'd just talk to her about it, if I knew for a fact that it couldn't possibly have happened because I was wearing undergarments.

If it was the soccer mom on the field and three policemen dropped by to "arrest the pervert", I'd prove that it was impossible while standing behind the squad car, and then I'd sue the woman in civil court if I found out who she was.

It's all a matter of degree.

**Highland Logan** · 18th March 08, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Alan H

I'm not sure how this got to be a combative thread. It's a small issue, really....to wear undergarments or not to wear them when kilted.

To get back to the issue of being falsely accused of flashing someone and how to handle it, I'd say that it very much depends on the situation and who is doing the accusing.
If it was my sister in law I'd just talk to her about it, if I knew for a fact that it couldn't possibly have happened because I was wearing undergarments.

If it was the soccer mom on the field and three policemen dropped by to "arrest the pervert", I'd prove that it was impossible while standing behind the squad car, and then I'd sue the woman in civil court if I found out who she was.

It's all a matter of degree.

Well the conversation evolved. Look, if my words came off as harsh I'm sorry. However we live in a "SOCIETY", that means we also have to take the feelings of others into account before we start stumbling through life like a bull in a china shop, shouting "ME! My WAY!". Follow the rules of a polite and law-abiding society and you can never go wrong.

Frank

**Alan H** · 18th March 08, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Highland Logan

Well the conversation evolved. Look, if my words came off as harsh I'm sorry. However we live in a "SOCIETY", that means we also have to take the feelings of others into account before we start stumbling through life like a bull in a china shop, shouting "ME! My WAY!". Follow the rules of a polite and law-abiding society and you can never go wrong.

Frank

We do in fact live in a a society with laws that are most usually set up for the common good. **nodding** But I have to say that Ghandi didn't follow the rules of a polite and law-abiding society, and neither did Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela or Archbishop Oscar Romero and neither did that guy in the middle east about 2,000 years ago who wore unbifurcated garments and ended his earthly existence on two large beams of wood, bolted or lashed together at right angles.

Now Ghandi and Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero and that guy in the middle east weren't fighting about underwear, eh? They had much more important things to say, and more important things to fight for, than underwear. I just wanted to try to graciously point out that sometimes it's best to NOT follow the rules of the polite and law-abiding society, when the greater right and the truer justice points beyond the "norm".

But again, those men had greater things on their mind than underwear. I have a problem equating someones right to not wear underwear with Ghandi facing British soldiers in a peaceful confrontation, or Archbishop Romero preaching against the tyranny in El Salvador that cost him his life. They're not the same thing. Underwear is UNDERWEAR, not basic human rights.

It wasn't just your post, there were several others. I'm just saddened that too many topics of discussion these days turn into anger and unhappy disagreement.