Mini-kilt suitability

**JimB** · 11th July 07, 08:32 AM

I personally LOVE mini-kilts!

I just wouldn't wear one.

**MacWage** · 11th July 07, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by JimB

I personally LOVE mini-kilts!

I just wouldn't wear one.

On a LASS, well THAT's a WHOLE different story (and something I think isn't done enough).

By mini-kilt, I think that means mid-thigh and shorter.

**Woodsheal** · 11th July 07, 09:26 AM

OK, I'm picturing our usual gang at our monthly kilt nights. We range in age (roughly) from 19 to 90, most being beyond the 40 mark. The mental image of any one of us (the guys, I mean) in a "mini-kilt" is making me cringe in horror...!

**Ugly Bear** · 11th July 07, 09:29 AM

Since we're talking about men's clothes, there has to be some sort of practicality at work here -- practicality drives what we wear.

In the case of a mini-kilt, the practical consideration is, how do you sit in it while keeping your privates covered? With a kilt, it's not a problem: just have a seat, and the weight of the fabric takes care of exposure issues. With a mini-kilt (well, mini-skirt; let's call a spade a spade), the "practicality" becomes strained. You'd have to keep knees together, or crossed, and keep paying attention to how the skirt is staying in place -- in short, you'd have to do everything that is called "sitting like a lady." Even if it weren't called that, the impracticality issues are overwhelming.

Then there are other practical, day-to-day things men are expected to do -- run, change a flat tire, etc. -- without self-exposure. There are too many things that are impractical in a mini-skirt.

The "Correct Length" for a kilt is one that allows for a full range of motion while keeping the wearer modest. The "Correct Length" was not arbitrarily set by Scottish Fashion Gurus; it was arrived at purposefully.

There are males who would buy and wear a mini-skirt. I'm pretty there aren't many at this forum.

**Wompet** · 11th July 07, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by MacWage

By mini-kilt, I think that means mid-calf and shorter.

The calf is the back of the leg below the knee ... perhaps you meant mid-thigh? If we start wearing our kilts below mid-calf, we'll be called liars and braggarts.

Buy one for myself? No.
Wear one myself? No.
Make one for someone? Only if I know her well enough to take her measurements.

**MacWage** · 11th July 07, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Wompet

The calf is the back of the leg below the knee ... perhaps you meant mid-thigh? If we start wearing our kilts below mid-calf, we'll be called liars and braggarts.

Buy one for myself? No.
Wear one myself? No.
Make one for someone? Only if I know her well enough to take her measurements.

Sorry, meant thigh. fixed now

**sporranlegionaire** · 14th July 07, 12:27 AM

Is this what we're talking about?
Just an inch or two above the knee can destroy a whole traditional look. But this high up....whatever next? (Another couple of inches off and that question's almost answered.)

**The F-H.C.A.G.** · 14th July 07, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Splash_4

....

And F-H.C.A.G., the photo you shared here is what convinced my wife that a mini-kilt was OK. So, you have my eternal thanks!

Glad I could be of service! Actually, AlanH is the one to thank-he made that mini.

I agree, we've sort of hijacked this thread, and I apologize for that-it just seemed like it was starting to get a little heated.

There are plenty of men out there that would look grand in a mini kilt. And plenty that would NOT. Just like there are plenty of women in the same boats. But we should not tell people what they whould wear, based on our own ideas of what is right for ourselves.

I do think there is a common decency issue to consider. I don't think there are many main stream societies that would appreciate men in kilts/skirts/whatever that are so short as to be revealing genitalia in public. Other than that, if the legs/upper thighs don't look good, I'll just not look at them.

Be well,

**staticsan** · 14th July 07, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by The F-H.C.A.G.

I agree, we've sort of hijacked this thread, and I apologize for that-it just seemed like it was starting to get a little heated.

This is what happens to interesting topics. And I wouldn't really say it's been hijacked; it's still pretty much on-topic: you've just confirmed that many guys prefer to see a nice lass in a mini-kilt.

Wade.

**sporranlegionaire** · 15th July 07, 12:11 AM

Observing works of art like Roman statues of ancient heroes and rulers, it's fairly reasonable to say that a man can look masculine in a shortened outfit, if he has the right build to go with it. But if you begin to look like the late, very slightly built, Charles Hawtry, in such a costume, as he appeared in one of those old 'Carry On' films, it might be a big mistake.
I can't see that wearing anything meant for a man, even if it closely follows a style of clothing worn by women, can be considered to be cr**s dr****ng. Though the question might be asked why he would want to. Comfort? Exhibitionism? Sexual orientation?
People are always quick to load unwritten restrictions on others based solely upon what they personally like to see them in or don't like to see them in, even if the folk dolling out their preferences are complete strangers.
If anyone is keen to go down that road, and is prepared to take the flack, then good luck to them. It isn't illegal.
I'm not into minikilts, but it is supposed to be a free world after all (or, so they try to tell us). At best, I might be tempted to wear one on a hot day up on the hills miles from anywhere, but with my hairy legs I would be forever untangling the bracken.