Another Question

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I have never understood why being in the presence of ladies or children should carry any greater risk of exposure than anything else.

I'm going to stop you right here. If there is the least possible risk of giving offense, then a gentleman goes to what ever lengths necessary to insure that he does not cause offense.

I don't care what has, or has not occurred in your presence, because that is beside the point. We're (or rather I'm) talking about gentlemanly behaviour and I am sure that as a gentleman you too would not wish to inadvertently give offense.

Now, despite what you and others may have said, I'm afraid that none of it alters, in one iota, how a gentleman should behave or dress. Diehard traditionalist that I am (and damn proud of it), I would repeat that "in the presence of ladies or children trews should be worn under the kilt". I am not alone in that opinion; I am amply supported by the likes of Loudon McQueen Douglas writing in 1914, by the regulations laid down for dress worn at court since Highland attire has been allowed, and by virtually every book or booklet on modern Highland attire published prior to "So You're Going To Wear The Kilt".

It is sometimes forgotten that gentlemen who are wearing the kilt for the first time are, perhaps, less comfortable with that mode of dress. The frankly stupid mythologies that surround the wearing of the kilt do nothing to put them at their ease. So in my opinion, reinforcing those myths is far less helpful than suggesting socially acceptable alternatives.

[NewGuise]

The first time I wore a kilt, very long ago, for a production of Brigadoon, I didn't even own a pair of underpants. Habits change. However, when I first wore a kilt of my own, far more recently, I still didn't once consider wearing anything under it. On my first trip outside, I suddenly felt a cool breeze up the kilt, which to me felt good, not remotely nervous-making. There was a later occasion, a very cold winter evening, when I nearly lost my footing on some ice and realized that falling, in a kilt, could involve hazards aside from bruises. I just walked a little more carefully, which is hardly a bad thing.

[SteveB]

MoR has made a valid point.

I am around some very young children every Sunday as a religion instructor. I have the wee trews for those occasions. More than once I have had one or more of the wee uns attached to my pleats during some activity. I do not care to explain anatomy to them or their parents.

As a gentleman, I dress appropriately to the occasion.

I have rarely worn the wee trews inside trousers at any time in my life. I started wearing them when shorts stopped being both short and became rather baggy. While seated at an outdoor event, I realized that the large tubes of cloth that were the legs of the new style "shorts" provided an up channel view if I were not careful.

Slainte

[Riverkilt]

I remember the first time I went kilted and regimental - it was a different feeling - but a feeling of FREEDOM.

I find that kilts are a much more modest garment than most forms of pants. With a kilt your boy parts are well covered by two layers of cloth and perhaps a sporran. Pants on the other hand often reveal the outline of your boy parts...a much less modest presentation.

While I greatly enjoy the FREEDOM of going regimental when kilted, I choose to wear black cotton boxers if I'm going to be around small children. Helps insure I'm not misunderstood.

[McClef]

MOR what might be considered as potentially offensive in 1914 is not necessarily the same in 2010.

And I have to say that cultural differences and attitudes can vary considerably between this side of the Atlantic and yours.

To infer that one is potentially less of a gentleman for not assessing "the least possible risk of inadvertently giving offence" before setting forth is verging on insult and suggests that to follow that logic one would always have to be attired less than regimentally.

Of course there may be situations where an individual may decide that a situation carries greater potential risk than others and decide to err on the side of caution. I do not have any problem with that whatsoever.

But it does not follow that modesty requires the sacrifice of comfort in all situations when one applies the risk compensation factor - the greater the perceived risk, the more careful one's reaction and demeanour.

It is difficult indeed when out and about to avoid ladies and/or children in the streets and shops. They may be potentially offended by the fact that one is even kilted - the number of times I have heard "mummy why is that man wearing a skirt" I have lost count of. I have even been accused by a woman in the street of "being dressed like a woman." The fact that she was wearing trousers apparently escaped her.

If one worried about every risk then getting out of bed in the morning would be potentially dangerous. One would never fly or drive or cross the road.

I would define a gentleman by how he treats others and his courtesy. I hold a door open so that a lady may pass through or give up my seat to one on a bus and help them with heavy luggage. I am not always even thanked.

I am sorry that you do not see experience as having value in the making of gentlemanly decisions. Chaucer's Wife of Bath would certainly not agree with you.

[Woodsman]

It is difficult indeed when out and about to avoid ladies and/or children in the streets and shops.

Yes, actually I would prefer to meet the ladies while kilted. I always feel that they are more understanding and accepting of a man in a kilt. Perhaps it's sharing a common bond even if they are in p**ts at the time.

It definitely is best to wear the kilt around and about at home before venturing out regardless of what one chooses to wear or not wear underneath. You can experiment with movement -tying shoes, sitting down, bending over, running, etc to learn how your particular kilt moves and how you should move with it. Wearing the kilt makes you more aware of your movements, your body and yourself. I will go so far as to say it makes you more aware of being alive.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MOR what might be considered as potentially offensive in 1914 is not necessarily the same in 2010.

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.

Trefor, 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.

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.

[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?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

Trefor, simply because a statement may be dogmatic doesn't make it any the less true.

How would one prove that one is being a gentleman by wearing something without showing it?

Trefor, a gentleman doesn't have to prove anything. He is a gentleman because he constantly strives to do "the right thing" in every facet of his daily life. He may not always succeed, but he always tries to get it right.

I've yet to meet a gentleman who would disagree with either of the above statements.

(And my apologies for my stuttering keyboard )

[robthehiker]

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. .

I was tempted to use this as my signature line but thought better of it.

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 generally try to avoid giving offense but I disagree with the notion that one shouldn't be regimental around ladies. There's no reason they'd have to know what I was or was not wearing underneath. So unless I'm going to be climbing ladders or standing on my head I'm likely to be regimental.

Children are another matter entirely and I do not go regimental if they are going to be around.