Quote Originally Posted by Micric View Post
....
I May oversimplify things, but to me a long kilt Really blurs the line between a kilt and a skirt, and I for one don't want anyone to mistake me for an old spinster!
....
If we look at the normal & modern fashion for the kilt, it will be noted that the length is to the top or at most mid knee.
....
Well, there are many examples of kilts hanging just below the knee cup. Some of them can be seen in "Kilts & Tartan made easy" by Dr Nicholas J Fiddes (see page 43 for three examples).

I don't think anyone would mistake these gentlemen as old spinsters even their knee-cup is not showing:

(Image from: http://www.albanach.org/images/belted-plaid.jpg)
The text there: "... the lower edge hangs about your knees. Whether it is above, below, or on your knees is personal choice. There does not appear to have been a standard length as this woodcut of Scottish soldiers from 1641 clearly shows."

Fashion or function?
The fashion today dictates the hemline to be to the top or to the middle of knee-cup.
The two inches more might put the kilt out of fashion but does it help the functionality or is it out of the margins of tradition?

I am all the time thinking the winter time. During warm weather the function says that the kilt should not tear your bare calves when hiking, so it should not be longer than about the middle of your knee-cup or even shorter. Would these couple of inches more make the kilt a comfortable garment in a bit colder weather or not? Anyone having any experience of the difference?

For not being mistaken as an old spinster I trust a full beard and missing of breasts.
And in the end, if someone wants to hit on an old spinster the frustration of the mistake would be his/her, not mine.