Comic Underwear!

[auld argonian]

When I first started getting into this whole thing and started reading this forum there was a posting that gave me some guidance. One or another of the kilted brethren stated that he did wear something under because he worked at a school or a day care center or something like that and he was of the opinion that this was appropriate when children were present. These days I am hardly ever anywhere where children are NOT present. A parade would qualify as a place where children are present. I certainly don't want to be the one to try to explain the grand old tradition of going regimental to some yuppie mom whose little darling has just been "scarred for life and in need of many years of expensive therapy" because of a shift in the wind. Fortunately there are many discreet and dark colored options in the underwear department at my local Kmart (or Target or where-ever).

Remember...what happens under your kilt stays under your kilt....or something like that. It's not like some sargeant-major is going to run around with a mirror on a stick checking on who's living up to "tradition".

Best

AA

[Robin]

Another topic showing the mutual respect on this forum...we don't share the same opinion sometimes, but it's great to see how the honorable members of this forum defend their point of view (with great zeal) and still respect other opinions...and eachother.

Cheers to you all!



What I wear (what others wear is not my business)...well sometimes regimental and sometimes black briefs.

My "tanks" are pretty windproof, so I can confidently go regimental...the pleats are heavy and I (almost) always wear a sporran. It can be very windy overhere, but I'm confident nothing will happen, when it happens...nah it will only be for a split second....no drama.

And...yes...sometimes I wear briefs, but if all goes well nobody will notice (that's why I won't wear boxers...they're longer and easier to spot).
I wear briefs when I go to work (or I take one with me to work)...I have to change cloths there.

I'll also wear briefs when I visit friends or family.
The reason...when you have to sit on a coach comfortably, someone might be able to get a look....much longer as a split second...that's not desirable.

[mudd]

some yuppie mom whose little darling has just been "scarred for life and in need of many years of expensive therapy" because of a shift in the wind.

And that’s just sad!

What is it about a society that finds it disgusting to see what another human really looks like?

We are all just wearing a disguise.

[arrogcow]

I believe James does have a valid point, gents. As a traditionalist, I can certainly understand the reasons behind his statement. But let me just say that I hold myself to certain standards when wearing the kilt, but not necessarily others. Traditionalist POV's tend to take a beating around here at times, but nevertheless, they are just as valid.

For those who wear the kilt out of respect for their heritage, or as a symbol of a particular clan, etc., I can see wear the wearing of "silly" underwear might be construed by some as "disrespectful". Even when I wear my kilt "casually", I am still very aware of the heritage and history behind it.

Again, these are just my own personal thoughts. I'm not saying that anyone else should follow or even agree with them.

Regards,

Todd

Not trying to bash tradition, but why is it tradition? Kilts are the only type of clothing that some people think have "rules" about undergarments to wear, or not wear as the case may be. Honestly except in extreme situations, no one would ever know (without an inspectin or the wearer showing/telling) so how can it be required to be regimental (and accordign to things I have read that historically regimental = no underwear when a king is on the throne and when a queen is on the throne underwear was required, and that only applies to soldiers anyway - I don't know if thats true or not, but its not any dumber than any other rule about what you "can/can not" wear.

What's under my kilt is my business alone.

Adam

[macwilkin]

Not trying to bash tradition, but why is it tradition? Kilts are the only type of clothing that some people think have "rules" about undergarments to wear, or not wear as the case may be. Honestly except in extreme situations, no one would ever know (without an inspectin or the wearer showing/telling) so how can it be required to be regimental (and accordign to things I have read that historically regimental = no underwear when a king is on the throne and when a queen is on the throne underwear was required, and that only applies to soldiers anyway - I don't know if thats true or not, but its not any dumber than any other rule about what you "can/can not" wear.

What's under my kilt is my business alone.

Adam

You miss my meaning. I simply was thinking aloud, so to speak, as to the validity of James's statements concerning "silly" underwear, not necessarily the wearing of underwear itself. As you say, what's under my kilt is my business alone, and I wouldn't dare dream to tell anyone else what to do.

My remarks about traditionalists, again, were more of a general nature. It seems to me that at times those of us with a more "traditional" take on Highland attire are pre-judged as close-minded, etc., and that the traditionalist POV is just as valid, as along both sides respect each other.

Cheers,

Todd

[davedove]

I can completely understand the feelings of the traditionalists and not wanting to make kilt wearers look "silly". I just think the whole subject is being taken a bit too seriously. In my point of view what underwear a person wears (or doesn't wear) is completely his business. I can even see wearing silly underwear as a way of having a secret joke to yourself. After all, how many people who wear trousers will put on a pair of humorous jockey shorts. They certainly don't expect anyone else to see them, except maybe their partner.

I would be a bit upset if the person wearing the shorts went around showing them off to just anyone, but the original thread was about "accidental" exposure, not flashing. I say wear whatever you want, but have some decorum.

[mbhandy]

I have read that historically regimental = no underwear when a king is on the throne and when a queen is on the throne underwear was required, and that only applies to soldiers anyway - I don't know if thats true or not, but its not any dumber than any other rule about what you "can/can not" wear.

What's under my kilt is my business alone.

Adam

Not to sure about that: (I edited the photo)



MrBill

[Kiltedfirepiper]

I have a pair of green boxers ....on the front Lt. side is the Guinness logo

on the back across the bum it says "I (picture of a shamrock)(picture of a pint of Guinness)

effectively saying "I shamrock guinness " :rolleyes:

stupid I know but if I wear it I usually end up "mooning" the slogan across the back

If I'm reg. then I tend to be a bit more ...whats the word.......shy?

[auld argonian]

Yah...actually I saw a really cute pair of Snoopy St. Pat's Day boxers at the store the other day....

....well, if cute is your thing.....

Best

AA