Quote Originally Posted by sathor View Post
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.
Since the bra burning idea was a metaphor for women's right of choice and freeing themselves from the constrictions of society, I don't really think it is analogous to men not wearing underwear under their kilts (or pants, for that matter). However, I would say men wearing kilts is possibly analogous, as it is symbolizing men's right of choice/freedom from society's constrictions. In today's world, men are simply expected to wear pants, and skirts are thought of as feminine garments - so when a guy wears a kilt, while there are people that do like and even encourage it, there are also an amount of people that discourage it and might even view it as a sin or something truly wrong for a man to wear.

There is a Men's Rights movement (that has a lot to do with the biased custody laws, among other things) which seems to be growing. I stumbled onto the men's rights movement after my brother got royally screwed over by his wife (now ex-wife!). I think that men wearing kilts, being kind of a physical comfort thing as much as a freedom of choice and freedom from society's restrictions kind of thing, would be the same for the men's rights movement as not wearing a bra was for the women's rights movement.