Difference between leather and traditional kilt

[CMcG]

I am fairly new to this forum, so this may have been discussed, or over-discussed, previously. It is my opinion that society generally differentiates between what is perceived as "legitimate" cultural dress and costume. A man seen wearing a tartan kilt, with the usual accoutrement will be perceived as Scottish and honoring his heritage. But once you change the basic character of the garment, you change the perception. A leather kilt becomes a skirt and is seen as an attempt to cross dress or otherwise flaunt the norms. The gentleman above with the leather kilt, the regimental sporran, etc is not wearing something to honor his heritage. He is wearing a costume. Costumes are worn to gain attention. If you don't wish to gain attention, good or bad. Don't go out in costume.

Unfortunately, the reaction of people to a tartan kilt worn with traditional accoutrement is not always and in all places as you describe. For example, I was specifically asked by a good friend to wear a kilt to his wedding. I was in the wedding party and everyone else was wearing p@nts. His mother had some harsh words for me at the rehearsal about the kilt and and then she didn't speak or look at me for the rest of the next two days. Perhaps it might have been worse if I had been wearing a leather kilt but, symbol of heritage or not, she was basically offended at my lack of bifurcation

And yes, the image above of the punk bagpiper is definitely a costume. He's a street performer and is, successfully, trying to draw attention to himself.