Another Question

[McClef]

Parse it all you want-- consideration of others is the hallmark of a gentleman now, as it was in your grandfather's day. It has nothing to do with where one lives, unless where you live the standards of acceptable behaviour are less than the standards adhered to by gentlemen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or anywhere else in the civilized world.

In my grandfather's day ladies wore extremely long skirts and very voluminous bathing costumes. What was considered shocking was somewhat different. Presumably you consider that there were no gentlemen in Highland Regiments where mirrors were used to check their status.

I doubt that Queen Victoria ever felt offended with the notion that some of the kilted gentlemen with whom she came into contact might potentially be regimental.

And I would suggest that from all the posts I have read both now and in the past that wearing something underneath is a bigger issue in the US than this side of the Pond.

Treffor, no one on this forum is the arbiter of what is, or is not, offensive-- yourself included. Believe it or not, there are people out there who would find the sight of your genitalia vulgar, disgusting, and offensive-- or worse, for you-- laughable. You may disagree, but it is their opinion that matters to them, not your idea of proper Highland-- sorry, Welsh-- attire.

It's that simple.

This is a somewhat crude and ad hominem statement (I will assume that the extra "f" was a typo though). You are implying that because I may have the temerity to disagree with your viewpoint on this matter that I must have some kind of flasher mentality which is assure you is not the case. You are also presuming that their opinion is that they are more comfortable in the presence of a kilted gentleman because they assume he is wearing undergarments. That being the case there should never be kilt check situations or raisings of the question. Nor it is anything to do with my idea of proper attire but with an individual's choice and resultant behaviour.

A gentleman behaves the way a gentleman behaves because he does not wish to unintentionally give offense to anyone. Ever.

Those who do not care if they give offense may dress as they please in the presence of ladies and children. They may not be accounted as gentlemen, but that choice is theirs to make.

I am afraid that I must give this dogmatic statement the same credence as others that have been made about gentlemen such as Charles Hamilton in Gone with the Wind that a Southern Gentleman could whip the Yankees, despite their superior industry and manpower, purely because they were not, in his view, Gentlemen and Lord Alfred Douglas in Wilde that "no gentlemen ever knows what is in his bank account."

Avoidance of all offence, or potential offence, is impossible. One is much less likely to offend through what is not seen but rather imagined. I could still offend by my choice of tie or not having shaved or not complimenting a lady on her new hairdo or whatever.

Riverkilt's analogy is quite apt. How would one prove that one is being a gentleman by wearing something without showing it?