wearing hygienic underwear

[mddock58]

It is MORE hygenic to wear underwear under a kilt, for the cleanliness of the kilt. Sweat and all else that can get on the kilt when regemental necessitates frequent cleaning, and depending on the kilt, cleaning it on your own may not be easy or effective.

In the old days.......they barely took baths, so who cares what was on the kilt!
Washing the kilt was a walk through the Loch!

It is just a statement on where we are now!

Take it as YOU want it, it's YOUR decision!

[pbpersson]

Sweat and all else that can get on the kilt when regemental necessitates frequent cleaning, and depending on the kilt, cleaning it on your own may not be easy or effective.

I have Utilikilts. I throw them in the washer, wait a while, and they are all clean agaiin.

If I was wearing $600 hand-sewn wool kilts of course I would wear underwear. I would be afraid of them touching anything at all, since they are dry-clean only.

[billmcc]

If I was wearing $600 hand-sewn wool kilts of course I would wear underwear. I would be afraid of them touching anything at all, since they are dry-clean only.

Phil, you just answered your own question. Wearing underwear is a way to help keep a wool kilt (regardless of price) clean so it doesn't need to be dry cleaned as often.

[Richard]

for what it's worth, I wear underwear

[Ruanaidh]

I always make sure to wear a long tailed shirt.

[Chris Webb]

My decision as to what is under my kilt is circumstance driven, not hygiene driven. While Regimental is my first choice it simply is not always the best choice. As for my kilt staying cleaner with underwear it simply does not. You can sweat on your kilt from direct contact or you can sweat on your kilt through underwear; either way you are sweating on your kilt and you are going to have to eventually clean it.

Kilt On.

Chris Webb

[Blu (Ontario)]

There's a simple litmus test. Do you, when wearing white underwear, notice the deposition of sweat and/or any other personal residue onto the white fabric? If so, there is the potential, if regimental, for similar residual substances to be transfered to the inner surfaces of a kilt, trousers, or any other garment subject to the act of sitting. Sweat can carry and spread even trace amounts of substances from once area to another through walking and motion. You may not see it... but your pet will know it's there.

It's not a definite, but it is a risk.

That said, I do indulge myself in the regimental tradition from time to time when the notion strikes and circumstances permit. It's a very personal choice.

[Ne Oublie]

I always make sure to wear a long tailed shirt.

Same here, any shirt I buy to be worn with a kilt I get extra long to act as a type of underwear.

[davedove]

Long tailed shirts WERE the undergarments of yore. By being next to the skin, the shirt would collect any bodily soils and was much easier to clean than the kilt.

Nowadays, it's easier to throw your underwear into the washer than a kilt.

[Colin]

I don't know how others are wearing their kilts, but the only time the kilt comes in contact with my skin (the back portion) is when I am sitting down. I can see the arguement about sweat and such on the wool, but honestly the kilt rarely touches skin. If I am wearing my wool kilt, I am likely dressed pretty nice, so why waste that by sitting for long periods of time? If I am wearing the kilt to work, it is likely a PV kilt, so who cares if I need to wash it more often.........it's machine washable

Otherwise the shirt is tucked in and the waistband of the kilt doesn't touch skin. The hang of a traditional kilt doesn't have pleats up against your butt or legs. I prefer regimental 99% of the time, any part of my body that the kilt touches is an area I was taught to keep clean from the toddler years, so I am not sure how underwear is more hygenic. I worry more about the mess on my hands from food or drinks I may have while kilted.

Everyone has their own opinion, that is just mine.