A thesis of sorts

[sathor]

There is often on here discussion about what is under the kilt, what used to be under the kilt, and many many variants of such questions.

Ultimately, is it probable, or at least analogous to the 'bra burning' of yesteryear? I am to young to know of the realities of the bra burnings, but I am still left wondering if perhaps deep down the 'question' is just part of a cycle that comes and goes. IS there a large difference between a woman refusing to wear a bra and a man in a kilt not wearing anything underneath (or more accurately, both having the choice and the option to choose.)


I am interested to see what the folks of the earlier generation think.

[Nighthawk]

In my case it's not at all the same. I haven't worn anything under my pants since middle school, so when I went full time kilted (I've hada kilt my whole life, reserved for special occasions) it was nothing new or different- it was just business as usual- only more stylish and comfortable.

[Riverkilt]

For sure a parallel...except that when women go braless men, dripping testosterone, get a view of the change. Women however, actually see less when a man is kilted.

One of the weird things I notice when I go back to wearing pants to work - particularly Dockers type slacks - I feel "exposed" like my package is there for viewing. In a kilt my package is FREE but well hidden.

In my quest to be able to wear kilts to work I often invoked the parallel between women first wearing pants to work back when and men wearing kilts to work now. Freedom to choose was working for the women in pants thing and the reactions then seem identical to the reactions now - on both sides of the issue. Sadly, there's little about the women to pants times posted on the Internet. Ancient history. Probably need to root around libraries for old books and magazines from those times.

Kilts are both FREE and modest.

But it cuts both ways.

Woman in a regular bra - you can't see evidence of her nipples. We know they are there, but you can't tell by looking.

Woman without a bra - you can usually tell by looking that she was issued the standard equipment by the Creator.

Man in a kilt - you can't see evidence of his package. We know its there, but you can't tell by looking.

Man in slacks - you can usually tell by looking that he was issued the standard equipment by the Creator and which side he "dresses" on.

The irony - the braless woman is free and the evidence is visible while the kilted man is also free and the evidence is hidden.

Its the same but different...

Ron

[Rex_Tremende]

As I understand it, the so-called bra burning didn't actually happen, but it was meant symbolize the feminist movement. It was an idea concocted for a protest outside the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City. But the protesters were unable to secure a license to burn anything on the boardwalk. (Think about it - boardwalks and open fires don't mix well.)

Anyway, the bra burning thing - or the symbolism behind it - was not so much about clothes but to express the right for women to break free of the traditions that bind them to particular gender roles.

For men and kilts and our undergirdings - and people's interest in it - well, it's not the same thing.

Regards,
Rex.

[ForresterModern]

Some of the same, some of the different.

Scottish Highland military units were "regimental" for centuries so the tradition at least in the military was long established. I can only assume that that tradition followed the preponderant civilian tradition at the time, so regimental is likely the old standard for kilts, although I am sure through the years, especially during certain seasons, undergarments were probably worn by at least a portion of the kilt wearing populace.

I am old enough to remember the "bra-burning" period of american history at least, and that actually had little to do with the desire to go bra-less (most women in the 4 decades since that era have still worn bras most if not all the time) but rather the desire to express their "right" as women to choose. Prior to that time, even in America, we were a predominently male oriented and male run society, and what men said went. Bra-burning was part of women's liberation---literally the symbol of that liberation, liberation form the physical constraints of the bra as well as the social constraints of not being able to show off their breasts or nipples even under clothing. But that liberation ran deeper in society and changed a lot more----women in law schools, medical schools, top flight business positions instead of court room stenographers and nurses and secretaries fetching coffee for the good ole boys network. So even though bra-burning was directly about literally taking off the bra and going loose and free, its real meaning as much more far-reaching than just the breast.

Men in kilts is a liberation of its own no matter what you wear or don't wear underneath, similar but to a much smaller scale than the bra-burning of the late 60's. It just happens that kilt wearing also had a history of being predominantly regimental even before kilt wearing became a fashion statement as much as a piece of clothing with an original purpose.

[McFarkus]

I think the freedom from bras was as much a symbol as anything else. I remember my mother snarling as she shoe-horned herself into a girdle (a much more oppressive garment than a bra). And HER mother grew up wearing corsets (a garment that could be included in a regimen of torture).

Like men wearing kilts, it's an issue of freedom and choice (like the choice of whether or not to go regimental)

[Spartan]

Some of the same, some of the different.

I am old enough to remember the "bra-burning" period of american history at least, and that actually had little to do with the desire to go bra-less (most women in the 4 decades since that era have still worn bras most if not all the time) but rather the desire to express their "right" as women to choose. Prior to that time, even in America, we were a predominently male oriented and male run society, and what men said went. Bra-burning was part of women's liberation---literally the symbol of that liberation, liberation form the physical constraints of the bra as well as the social constraints of not being able to show off their breasts or nipples even under clothing. But that liberation ran deeper in society and changed a lot more----women in law schools, medical schools, top flight business positions instead of court room stenographers and nurses and secretaries fetching coffee for the good ole boys network. So even though bra-burning was directly about literally taking off the bra and going loose and free, its real meaning as much more far-reaching than just the breast.

Men in kilts is a liberation of its own no matter what you wear or don't wear underneath, similar but to a much smaller scale than the bra-burning of the late 60's. It just happens that kilt wearing also had a history of being predominantly regimental even before kilt wearing became a fashion statement as much as a piece of clothing with an original purpose.

IMO, this summarizes the issue very well. I too am old enough to remember.

[The Barry]

I personally enjoy Ron's viewpoint on the similarities and differences among the "women's lib" and "kilted men's lib" movements.

I too, feel less exposed in my kilt than in pants.

[Colonel MacNeal]

Whether going Regimental or Queen's Rules, since I've done both, I just like the breeze. Very refreshing.

[The Barry]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me to muck up the freedom of unbifurcation with a bifurcated garment underneath. But that's just me.