Enough is Enough

[Archangel]

Went back and looked just to be sure, didn't see anyone's name on that post other than mine. Knickers in a knot is a reference to attitude and I saw several that were getting a little tight during that time so if the shoe fits...but no it was not "directed" to you.

Now, lets define a coulple of things here. Number one: I don't know beans about the laws of Canada and, since I don't live there, could care less. Its the laws south of the border that I have to stay clear of.

Number two: by those laws, both Fed and most state, a single kilt lift is not sexual harassment. Sexual harassment requires intent and one of two circumstances as I understand it... 1) the harasser is in a position to advance or retard the positon or carreer of the person or 2) it requires multiple (this means more that one) reportable incidents by the same person on the victim.

Number 3: Anything less than the above may constitute physical or sexual assult but is not harassment.

Now, I don't know about some of you out there but I have a serious problem with dialing 911 and report that I was sexually assulted by a 5 foot something, 110 pound woman or any woman for that matter.

But all the above is moot since I really don't give a fuzzy rat's backside if my kilt gets lifted or not. As far as furthering the myth that men in kilts are pervs...ditto...don't care. A man much wiser that I once said this of what people may have thought of him..."if it is a lie then it is beneath notice, if it is true then you have nothing to say in your defense".

Enough of this, y'all er makin my butt itch.

Mike

I'm cool.
For whatever it's worth, your assessments are close enough for me right now, and I basically, sort of, agree with your summary.
Good night...........fuzzy rat's backside, what kind of a picture is that?.....oh never mind...g'night.

[Kilts_Knave]

A single kilt lift is not sexual harassment.

This would depend on what line of work you are in. If I was stupid enough to go commando in a kilt to MY job and another teacher decided to kilt-check me in front of my elementary kids, you' bet your a$$ it would not only be harassment but assault, and possibly some other charges, not to mention ethics violations, which are enforceable by law in the state of Florida.

Sexual harassment requires intent and one of two circumstances, as I understand it.

Or, sexual harassment occurs if your actions "create a hostile working environment." (The law allows someone to ask you out on a date up to 3 times, after the third “no” it becomes harassment.) Nebulous, you say? Sure! If a woman or man at work exposed me I would say that constitutes creating a hostile working environment, seein’s how I teach at an elementary school. So, it all depends on your line of work. Try to kilt-check a cop, a teacher, a fireman (sorry, er, fireperson?), a politician, a nurse, etc… A double standard? Sure. Try being a male teacher in an elementary school. There are only two of us. And we both are treated very differently by the parents AND our fellow teachers (well, some of them, not all). My administrators have come awfully close. When I told my AP I would wear my kilt to school on occasions, the first words out of her mouth were, "Are you going to wear underwear?" I wonder what would happen if I ask her if her panties were clean today, after all, she is wearing khakis? Do you really think there would NOT be a sexual harassment complaint? Give me a break, ya’ll. Once is enough –hostile work environment. And, oh God, what if I said something about VPL’s (visible panty lines) EVER?

I could go on and on. Yes, it is a matter of taste and preference as to whether you mind being kilt-checked or not, and I suppose it caters to the male bravado and and/or machismo, but bottom line is it is a behavior that is condoned and tolerated, for now. Yes, it is a double standard, welcome to reality. Men are different and we are treated differently because we have pee-pees. Women are the fairer sex and men cheat. This is no news flash!

Kilt checks are like tartans –they are both a matter of personal choice. But kilt checks, gentlemen (and ladies), in my opinion, lower the whole tone in a fashion choice that is already marginal.

[Archangel]

My administrators have come awfully close. When I told my AP I would wear my kilt to school on occasions, the first words out of her mouth were, "Are you going to wear underwear?" I wonder what would happen if I ask her if her panties were clean today, after all, she is wearing khakis? Do you really think there would NOT be a sexual harassment complaint? Give me a break, ya’ll. Once is enough –hostile work environment. And, oh God, what if I said something about VPL’s (visible panty lines) EVER?

Morning.
That's not necessarily a double standard. Depending on how she asked, she is fulfilling her responsibility of protecting the kids. As this thread evidences, a large number of kilt wearers are commando and willing to bare it. And that's part of our culture. She has to make sure that there will be no accidents and the damage will be minimalized. You, in contrast, have no reason to ask about the condition of her underwear. It also sounds like you're not in a position to make fashion comments about her clothes' fitting. Just as well, because preventing comments on how well she fits her clothes is part of the goal of the legislation. My observation, nobody ever comments on how well or poorly my clothes fit me. That is the observable double standard.

[Jimmy Carbomb]

Boy, did this thread get HEAVY?!

Before this wife:

1). Kilt checks were okay... with asking.
2). Sudden lifts were a shocker... but rare.
3). Running around with your tartan up... not good.
4). Answering questions with humour... the best!

Since wedding:

1). No kilt checks allowed. I push them off on the single guys.
2). Sudden lifts are non-existant since I just don't get into those situations.
3). Answering questions with houmour... STILL the best.

Look... the women around here see the kilts as a very sexy thing, and they tend to meet the fashion with good nature. IF there's a guy in this region that has the "brass ones" to wear a kilt... then he MUST be strong enough to handle some female fun. It's not going to happen at a five-star restaurant at 7:00, but it may happen at a wild night-club at midnight.

The females around here seem to understand the situation, and know that there's a place for fun, and a place to be coy. Thankfully, kilt-wearers around here know where it's "dangerous" and know where it's "safe". You just need to enter into the situation with a firm understanding of your mate (if applicable), the surroundings (ie. camera phones and gangs of bridal partiers) and the future from your actions.

Look. I've been there. It's fun (and actually a bit emboldening) at first, but gets a little tiresome after time. I'm sure that there are a LOAD of guys that go through the transition... and some choose to remain in their own personal set. I also know that someone else's choice to flash the civilized world is not going to make any difference on how I'm approached. I don't carry myself that way.
As for the US and Canadian laws... GEESH. Common sense and NOT putting yourself in a situation that can allow "intrusion" is YOUR responsibility.

[Raphael]

When I told my AP I would wear my kilt to school on occasions, the first words out of her mouth were, "Are you going to wear underwear?" I wonder what would happen if I ask her if her panties were clean today, after all, she is wearing khakis? Do you really think there would NOT be a sexual harassment complaint? Give me a break, ya’ll. Once is enough –hostile work environment. And, oh God, what if I said something about VPL’s (visible panty lines) EVER?

.

I am with Archangel here, that situtation is hardly a harassment situtation. She is asking because she knows the tradition started by the Highland Regitments. I don't know the whole story, but I don't think she wanted to know for personal reason. I bet she was asking because she didn't want you to flash any parent/student by accident and file a complain with the school board. Are you sure her intention wasn't to protect and the school and you?

I may not be an elementry school teacher, but I have a son in Kindergardgen. I have to say that I have never gone commando when I am on school ground or places where there are a lot of kids around.

[Kilts_Knave]

My administrators have come awfully close, I said. In my opinion it was "close." Educators should be trusted enough to make the proper decision of wearing underwear with unbifuracted garments around young children. But you're right, she is acting in the best interests of the children, so I'll shut up. AP's just kinda stick in my craw sometimes.

I wonder if someone would make me shirt that says "NO it's a kilt and YES I am wearing underwear!"

[Freedomlover]

Well. I would have to say "mission accomplished". My intention with the OP was to get people thinking. As usual, aspects have arisen that I did not expect. And that is a good thing. The subject is serious, gentlemen, without regard to whether or not we all think so.

The remarks that follow are most definitely not aimed anywhere specifically. They are my personal observations only.

On the matter of personal dignity: Some men are punctilious about it and some are not.

On the matter of personal space: Some care about it more than others, and there are extremes at both ends.

On the matter of personal freedom and its effect upon others: Some recognize that their actions either directly or indirectly effect others and act accordingly. Some recognize that what they do extends beyond themselves, but do whatever they please without regard to distant consequences. And still others are happily clueless.

But these things are a fact of human society, aren't they? My purpose is to point out a few broad types, and perhaps stimulate conversation, not to condemn any of them.

[Graham]

Some men are punctilious

please mind your language on the board. ;)

[bubba]

Some men are punctilious

Other are pugnacious. ;)

[Riverkilt]

Well, you gentlemen got me curious...looked up Arizona Statutes and found this:

ARS 13-1203-A3 Assault: knowingly touching another person with the intent to insult or provoke such person. Its a misdemeanor. Definitions don't say if "touching" includes a person's garments.

Back in my foxhole now. Helmet on.

Ron