Quote Originally Posted by Freedomlover
I basically like the idea. It serves a useful purpose.
But how about this: Make it as a wrap around. A full or partial elastic waist, possibly with hooks ala PK's, and in any color but white might get a better reception.

I was wondering something similar, Freedomlover.

I might be completely out-of-line here, and I can appreciate both sides of the discussion, albeit that I'm new here and don't have any knowledge of some of the history people are referring to... but if the "unbifurcated underwear" were to be in a wrap-around format (similar to the way kilts wrap around the body) then it wouldn't look exactly like a woman's slip, it wouldn't have any gaps that would allow oil or sweat to stain one's kilt (and all that the kilt stands for), and it wouldn't bind like some bifurcated undergarments tend to.

As someone who hasn't yet worn a kilt, I am inclined to lean towards the concept of just wearing jocks or boxers under a kilt (for modesty and the protection of the kilt), rather than a garment that does resemble a slip or going regimental (if the latter means I might offend someone and/or soil my kilt).

If I might make one last observation: the threads I've read on this site have, for the most part, demonstrated that the members of this site are united in their love of *kilts*... and all that kilts stand for - including a strong, masculine tradition. I might be mistaken, but I get the impression that one new undergarment on the market will not be sufficient to breakdown this connection many people have with the masculine tradition associated with Kilts.

Just my opinion - YMMV.

regards

Hachiman