Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot
I believe James does have a valid point, gents. As a traditionalist, I can certainly understand the reasons behind his statement. But let me just say that I hold myself to certain standards when wearing the kilt, but not necessarily others. Traditionalist POV's tend to take a beating around here at times, but nevertheless, they are just as valid.

For those who wear the kilt out of respect for their heritage, or as a symbol of a particular clan, etc., I can see wear the wearing of "silly" underwear might be construed by some as "disrespectful". Even when I wear my kilt "casually", I am still very aware of the heritage and history behind it.

Again, these are just my own personal thoughts. I'm not saying that anyone else should follow or even agree with them.

Regards,

Todd
Not trying to bash tradition, but why is it tradition? Kilts are the only type of clothing that some people think have "rules" about undergarments to wear, or not wear as the case may be. Honestly except in extreme situations, no one would ever know (without an inspectin or the wearer showing/telling) so how can it be required to be regimental (and accordign to things I have read that historically regimental = no underwear when a king is on the throne and when a queen is on the throne underwear was required, and that only applies to soldiers anyway - I don't know if thats true or not, but its not any dumber than any other rule about what you "can/can not" wear.

What's under my kilt is my business alone.

Adam