Have you/would you wear this?

[Tobus]

Now that made me LOL.
and short white shocks???????

MrBill

Well, it was the most obvious correlation I could come up with, where an item which is distinctly identified with the kilt were to be taken out of its original context and worn with some other type of clothing. Todd is correct that classic brogues and tall socks are worn with Bermuda shorts (and indeed this is a historical military uniform style); but the lace-up-the-leg ghillie brogues are typically not worn with anything but the kilt, and it would just look out of place when paired with anything else. I think traditional sporrans fall into the same category, although certainly there's wiggle room for wearing a non-traditional sporran as a belt pouch with trousers.

I have a distant non-kilt-wearing friend who wears a leather fanny-pack with his blue jeans (or camouflage BDU trousers, which is his usual choice). He wears it in the front, draped just below his trouser belt, with a quick-access zipper for carrying a concealed "item-which-shall-not-be-discussed-on-this-forum". Lots of men do this, and it's almost a dead giveaway as to what they're carrying in there. It looks a bit dorky to me, but it's not uncommon. Anyway, he refuses to call it a fanny-pack and prefers instead to call it his sporran. I've tried to gently dissuade him from using that term, as I am a bit embarrassed to have my traditional kilt sporran associated with that fashion monstrosity, but oh well! He continues in his fantasy that he's wearing a sporran instead of a leather fanny-pack.

[tundramanq]

I have assumed the same for all the oversize waist packs. A kilt would tend to disguise it especially if the pack is sporran-ish.
Have yet to be happy with any sporran design for CC - all too large, odd shaped or unstable on chain or hangers.

[Tobus]

Uh, let's not go down that road with this discussion. Every time it (CC) comes up, threads get shut down. The only reason I mentioned it was to point out that men do wear front-hanging pouches with trousers, but they really ain't sporrans. And there's a pretty widely held notion in American fashion that they are pretty dorky with trousers. Men who wear them are usually doing so for a specific (and obvious) reason.

[Friday]

OK, maybe "wrong" was too harsh a word. There is no right or wrong here. But wearing a sporran would be a bit odd and way out of context with trousers, if it's worn in the same manner as with a kilt. It would be like wearing ghillie brogues with Bermuda shorts.

If I remember correctly the holes in the original ghillie brogues where to allow water to drain out when walking through bogs, streams and other than dry highland country side. Shorts allow you to walk through bogs, streams and other than dry Bermuda sea side.

I think they are a perfect fit.

[tundramanq]

It's quite interesting the ghillie brogue shoe designed for walking on the muck, somehow became a high fashion item in Highland wear.
Cowboy boots evolved the same way, just no drain holes - different muck , and a lot more horse back riding.