Quote Originally Posted by sathor View Post
There is often on here discussion about what is under the kilt, what used to be under the kilt, and many many variants of such questions.

Ultimately, is it probable, or at least analogous to the 'bra burning' of yesteryear? I am to young to know of the realities of the bra burnings, but I am still left wondering if perhaps deep down the 'question' is just part of a cycle that comes and goes. IS there a large difference between a woman refusing to wear a bra and a man in a kilt not wearing anything underneath (or more accurately, both having the choice and the option to choose.)


I am interested to see what the folks of the earlier generation think.
On a purely analytical point, I really do not believe that what is under a man's kilt has anything to do with what motivated the bra burnings. The bra burnings were more symbolic of women's rights and freedoms. Let us take a snap shot of history. During the period of the bra burnings, it was ludicrous to even consider a woman as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Women such as Hillary Clinton would have been stamped down and put in their place. The nature of a bra is to confine but was also a unique female item. Thus the women who went to participate in the bra burnings were screaming out, "Do not confine me. I am better than being the little woman belonging only to the kitchen and to make babies."

So in conclusion there really is no relevance. The choice of whether you wish to wear something under your kilt is really a matter of comfort and choice. Not a statement. On one other note, I will like to point out that wearing undergarments such as panties and underwear is actually rather new concept in the history of garments and was very slow to take hold. Initially it was only the very well to do that could afford the luxury as they were made of very fine linen.