Quote Originally Posted by Leprechaun-91 View Post
We must remember a few things here.

1. The kilt was worn by poor people as their daily garb. It was worn to the field and the funeral. It was worn to breakfast and the battlefield. In short, it was the bluejeans or chino of it's day. There was no set of "rules" or even "guidelines" for them to adhere to.

2. One of the reasons women "dig" guys in kilts is because of the belief that to wear the garment takes a certain self confidence that women find attractive. This same self confidence means that we should not be afraid to bend the "guidelines."

When we view the "traditional" kilt, we fail to remember that what we see is what it became after proscription. Highlanders didn't wear pretty P.C. jackets with jabbots. They certainly didn't wear buckle brogues. We are viewing things through the filter of a revived (if not romanticized) style of dress that originated as the practical dress of the rough - and - tumble working man.


If Bluejeans were outlawed, how would they be worn once the prohibition were lifted?
Respectfully, though...it should be pointed out that much of civilian Highland attire has its origins in the Highland regiments of the British Army, from the cut of jackets to styles of bonnets, hose, sporrans and all that. One could hardly accuse the officers and other ranks of the Highland regiments of not being of the same ilk as the rough-and-tumble working man.

Also, even rough-and-tumble working men knew how to dress appropriately when needed. My grandfather, who farmed the Iowa soil for most of his life, would have never dreamed of wearing his dirty overalls to church or lodge.

Again, please do not think me disrespectful -- just an observation.

Regards,

Todd