Friendly discrimination? Kilt length.

[irmavep]

I am seeing a fairly high level of discrimination with kilt length. On this forum you can have a kilt made out if viscose dipped in teflon, and it's OK. You can wear tartan or solid colors, and it's OK. You can wear work boots, gillies, or sandals, and it's OK. BUT when it comes to kilt length if it's an inch above the knee your wearing a skirt, and if it's an inch below your wearing a granny dress? Aren't all the above mentioned things personal preference? Shouldn't we all stick together no-matter how long are kilts are, an inch above the knee or an inch above the ankle does it really matter. This is about comfort for you, not others. If we listened to the "others" none of us would be kilted at all would we.
When you talk to nudists they say that they enjoy the freedom from the fashion industry. In your skin your you, not an ad for Nike or Calvin Klein. They then go on to pick on the flaws of others, "Did you see how hairy his back is" "That is a huge scar she has".
We have already broken away from "traditional" kilt wearing. Why are we hanging on to one last idea?

Just something to think about.
John

[zeytoun]

Good points, John.
I think everyone on this forum has their own opinions on practically every aspect of kilt wearing. Even kilt length.

Jimmy, if I am recalling correctly, has commented that he likes the way a kilt feels a little longer. In fact we had an entire thread devoted to this question (which I can't seem to find now). And, in fact, lots of different posters had different opinions and personal preferences on length.

Of course everyone is free to wear a kilt at their desired length. But tartan has a lot of history to it, and it's much more excusable IMHO, if it is done as an educated decision rather than out of ignorance. A lot of uneducated kilt wearers will wear a dress tartan, or wear their kilt backwards, or wear a beautiful traditional tartan very low on their hips when it was tailored to sit higher up. This is their choice, but if it's done out of ignorance and lack of concern about the history and work that went in to the kilt, I personally am a bit offended. If, on the other hand, they know and respect the history, but have decided to fuse it into something new, more power to them.

And if someone posts a picture, I think it's an open invitation to give our individual opinions

[beverlonian]

If you look at photos of Scottish soldiers wearing kilts, the length appears to be to the top of the knee. To me, therefore, this is the correct length. Higher or lower just does not look right. But, each to his own.

[irmavep]

If you look at photos of Scottish soldiers wearing kilts, the length appears to be to the top of the knee. To me, therefore, this is the correct length. Higher or lower just does not look right. But, each to his own.

As I said "We have already broken away from "traditional" kilt wearing. Why are we hanging on to one last idea?"

P.S. I am including myself in on the discrimination, I am not at all saying I don't give an odd eye when I see really short or really long kilts.

[mcnice]

for me a kilt has also to come nearby around the knee. thats just me, and i personally don t like the look of kilts coming 10 inches below. but i saw that many americans wear their Utilikilts so.
and longer kilts are also provided by a german brand, but not my case: (look under "scottish")
https://ssl.kundenserver.de/andersla...pZbDbr2&PID=no


on the other hand i would say that long, unbifurcated garments that could also be wrapped around (in order to allow spreading legs and comfortable sitting) would be a nice choice more. and long garments have the same advantage concerning freedom in the crotch.
although i like the idea of those long skirts (and from this site they are to wrap around) i can t imagine me yet in such a long skirt...

you ll find on the same address under "elegant" for exmple such long skirts.

[Blu (Ontario)]

I am seeing a fairly high level of discrimination with kilt length.

I think most of this group are quite discriminating in their tastes, yes.

... when it comes to kilt length if it's an inch above the knee your wearing a skirt, and if it's an inch below your wearing a granny dress? Aren't all the above mentioned things personal preference?

Yes and No... Although men have worn kilts for a considerable period of time, it's still a niche fashion choice for daily wear. As Zeytoun point out, tradition, history, respect, etc. remain strong inlfuences in our decision making where the kilt is concerned. As this forum is about KILTS, we tend to stay within the boundaries of the accepted definition of KILT as a mans garment. If you choose to stretch the envelope, there's nothing to stop you.[/quote]

Shouldn't we all stick together no-matter how long are kilts are, an inch above the knee or an inch above the ankle does it really matter.

Where kilts are concerned, I believe we do stick together. This board isn't about fashion freedom. You need to visit the fine folks over at Tom's Cafe' to discuss those issues.

This is about comfort for you, not others.

Depends on your MO.

When you talk to nudists they say that they enjoy the freedom from the fashion industry. In your skin your you, not an ad for Nike or Calvin Klein. They then go on to pick on the flaws of others, "Did you see how hairy his back is" "That is a huge scar she has".

Non-sequitur

We have already broken away from "traditional" kilt wearing. Why are we hanging on to one last idea?

Not Really. We haven't broken away from anything. The modern kilt is just an evolutionary step offering a viable alternative. The demand must be there for the modern style to survive as it has. For the most part, they stay within the general boundaries of the currently accepted definition of KILT. (Spare the "kilt is a skirt" argument, please.) This, too, may evolve and change in the future. We'll have to wait and see. [/quote]

Just something to think about.

Yep.

blu

[KiltedHuntsman]

First rule of the Kilt Club: We don't talk about the Kilt length.

[Raphael]

I think it depends on what the guy is going to wear with his kilt. If he is to wear ankle or calf length socks, he might as well wear his kilt a little pass the knee cap.

But if he is going to wear kilt hose, longer kilt just doesn't look right.

And really, most guy don't do longer kilt, because it will look like a skirt.

[phil h]

my kilts are all differnt lengths.
my latest still water is toward the lower part of my knee, others like my leather "r-kilt" I wanted to try it a bit shorter.
IMHO the middle of the knee looks best.
and a few inches above the knee, does look a bit "skirty" to me, but that's just MY opinion.
do whatever you think is best for you.
there are no rules.
the original scottish way of thinking was , your kilt should not touch the floor as you kneel to pray.
I agree with bcmtnbka
if I wear a longer kilt I tend to wear boots.
and with shorter kilts I wear kilt sox.
or there would be no gap between kilt and sox.
for me, this is a "no, no"

[Jimmy Carbomb]

I, like Phil, have a load of kilts and very few are of the same length. Casuals, Formals, Traditionals, Tartans, Solids, etc... all have a certain look that works for me.

Do I prefer to have mine just below the knee cap? Yup. Why? Because I move around A LOT, and the little extra weight with the heavy pleats, and the extra fabric length helps me to assure that I don't get arrested.

Am I concerned about the kilt length of others? Not really, as long as the Britney Spears look is not in a pipe band.

My ONLY concerns are with kilt type designations for the buyers... and that's more for knowing what you're getting when you spend your hard-earned money on a kilt. 8)