justification for underwear when kilted

[llyd]

I typically respond to "The Question," By explaining what modern regimental mores of modesty are, and then leaving them guessing..except one guy last weekend at the sci-fi convention...I just showed him...of course I was wearing tabasco printed shorts...but it was still funny...
Also..there is the issue of chafe...any good sailor will tell you that proper chafing gear is a must on any vessel...

[Chainsaw02]

Father Bill, The Official BREN and all: Be true to thyself. As self centered as that may seem, for me at least, it is the way to survive with the least amount of regrets. Live long and enjoy life ya'all.

Larry Dirr

[sailortats]

Also..there is the issue of chafe...any good sailor will tell you that proper chafing gear is a must on any vessel...

aye, that it is Sir, no ship can do without it.

[TheOfficialBren]

Father Bill, The Official BREN and all: Be true to thyself. As self centered as that may seem, for me at least, it is the way to survive with the least amount of regrets. Live long and enjoy life ya'all.

Larry Dirr

***, Larry.

[Brett]

I usually but not always choose to wear an undergarment when kilted. If I'm wearing a kilt for a night out to pubs or other similar type social venues, I will always wear an undergarment. The biggest reason for me is simply due to the possibility of some sort of altercation. The sad fact is that wearing a kilt will occasionally attract a negative comment or two. I have no issue ignoring most comments, but if it progresses to harassment, I prefer to not have my private parts flailing about while the rest of me flails about.

Thankfully, I have yet to have a situation progress to a phyiscal altercation and hopefully it never happens.

[llyd]

Brett..true...I think the possibility of catching a beating from a guy in a skirt is too much for most guys to bear...lol....Still some get sore when all the ladies pay attention. one would think the kilt would be more common.

[TheOfficialBren]

One would think?! I think that, in America at least, people are very paradoxical in a way and that leads to a bizarre offset in sensory perception. Think of John Wayne...then add a kilt to him. Most Americans get confused. Many Americans think that only Scots in Scotland wear the kilt...but the truth is probably that there are more kilts purchased from US buyers than Scottish buyers, or even the whole UK.

It's strange that for a country largely built by Scots and with millions of living descendents of Scots here that Highland culture and dress is very much on the fringe...then again, I live in Southern California so I guess my cultural heritage is pretty foreign amongst all the Spanish stuff here.

America is a salad bowl (not a melting pot) of cultures, to its benefit and occasional detriment. It binds us together as a nation of immigrants and, paradoxically, makes real cultural cohesion a tricky thing.

Scottish culture (indeed, all British culture, esecially English and Welsh) isn't given the attention that Asian, African, and Latino cultures are given in the limelight here. Fair enough. To all things a season, I suppose.

Not getting political with this. Just sharing some insight since this seems to be the turn the thread has taken--cultural perceptions of the kilt outside its native land.

There is also the ignorant machismo component for which my countrymen are often famed, much to the chagrin of the growing minority.

[Mike_Oettle]

I sense a Scottish reaction in this forum against the notion that the kilt might or should be worn without underwear.
Jock Scot is a true Scot, but served in an English regiment. I am not certain of Alex’s military background, but I don’t think he wore a kilt in the army either.
Going regimental is called that because it is a tradition in kilted regiments – wherever they are found – that underwear is not worn, and that to be found out with undergarments is a blemish on the regiment’s tradition.
I imagine that the Canadian Irish are an exception to this, because – like the pipers in the Irish Guards and similar regiments, including the South African Irish – the Irish generally took to wearing kilts in the late 1890s, by which time underwear had become fashionable.
And it is most definitely a matter of fashion.
Before that time, men generally did not wear underpants, and nor did women. Ladies wore long dresses with multiple petticoats, but no panties.
The first underwear that fashionable young women adopted took the form of leggings that were tied to the thighs at either end, and did not cover the groin. Older women, on hearing that such a young “gel” had lost her bloomers, would tut-tut and remark that it served her right for being such a hussy.
In the 1920s, when skirts became short for the first time, it became necessary for women to wear underwear to avoid the embarrassment of being caught with nothing underneath if the wind lifted the skirt.
Nowadays it is felt by most women that not to wear panties or a bra is indecent – the exact opposite of the feelings among older women when such garments first became fashionable.
I mention these facts not only because Corinne (Copperhead) asked about it, but because the matter of underwear generally is widely misunderstood.
In answer to Corinne, I firmly believe that underpants are not helpful to a woman because they prevent the natural drying of the pubic area through evaporation along the hair that grows there.
For the same reason I abhor the practice of shaving the armpits (by either men or women) and the use of unnatural substances such as anti-perspirants. The reason armpits stink is that they are generally encased in tight clothing. Regular washing of the area, and the wearing of looser garments, ensures proper evaporation and less unpleasant odour. (Incidentally, I do use a deodorant, but I avoid anti-perspirants because they cause me physical pain.)
Nowadays women generally wear pants (trousers) or shortish skirts. With both, undies are advisable. But a woman who wears full-length skirts has no real need to wear panties unless her skirt is perhaps a bit diaphanous.
For many women, wearing a bra is a necessity at certain times. But for a great many, it would be healthy not to wear a bra for much of the time.
This whole discussion began with a question about kilts.
There is nothing wrong with wearing a kilt “regimentally”.
Military units have retained the tradition partly because they are not slaves to fashion, but also because the lack of underwear has certain definite advantages.
Is it wrong not to go regimental?
As I have said before, it is a matter of personal preference.
And my preference (when circumstances permit) is to do just that.
Regards,
Mike

[Chainsaw02]

Mike Oettle,

I have made an overall study of fashion from early man (and women) and your assessment of undergarments is right on the money.
A big + one.

Larry Dirr

[Phil]

I am intrigued as to why some historical dissertation should guide us or provide any justification for our modern-day clothing preferences. If Mr Oettle prefers going about sans underwear that is his decision entirely but quite why he should seek to justify that choice on some historical foundation is beyond me. I can only surmise that he needs such justification to lend legitimacy to an activity that he would otherwise feel uncomfortable or even guilty about. I am not sure that many of us would feel the need to go about sporting codpieces or wear tights and powdered wigs but, by the same token, it is there in the history books so could be quite legitimately justified on a similar basis.
As to military traditions I have little knowledge beyond their purpose of reinforcing a common purpose, an esprit de corps, for the obvious reason of ensuring that a body of troops operate as a single force and without question to be at their most effective. Whether a similar imperative should apply in civilian life is another matter altogether.