Mini-kilt suitability

**sporranlegionaire** · 12th July 07, 07:56 AM

Someone mentioned receiving a 20" drop kilt in error - but has gotten used to it. I'm currently wearing a 20" drop SK Hiking Kilt, and often use it about the house. I wouldn't call it a mini though. It feels OK, with the waistband at my navel, the hem falls exactly at the top of the knee - not really cringe-worthy. If it were in a heavier material I'd most likely wear it outdoors. All my others are around 22" to 23" drop. But then, I'm not a sixfooter.
A man's knobbly knee is not always a pretty sight, but seems to work well peeping from beneath a kilt. It's the point at which the leg bends, so it makes sense to keep it free. But with the leg exposed much higher there has to be a reason...and that is open to debate. Shorter swimshorts expose far more male leg, which you can get away with - though the image does tend to jarr a bit with over-80 year-olds in far too short shorts. But the same shortness in an unbifurcated garment leaves a confusing impression. The guy might just enjoy having less coverage...but still in a casual masculine way, like he might by wearing shorts (OK, maybe over casual for some tastes). Or he might prefer wearing skirts anyway. Personally, I feel that anyone should be able to wear whatever they like - it's entirely up to them.
My understanding of the definition of a kilt is that it has an apron at the front and pleats at the back, and fastens across from one side or the other, depending upon the gender of the wearer. If this is what a kilt is, then exactly the same arrangement of design in a shorter version must therefore still be a kilt...or, if you like, mini-kilt. But it isn't a traditional kilt.
I wouldn't wear a miniaturised version of a kilt, not because I wouldn't enjoy it - the extra freedom and airiness is probably great on a hot day - but because I have no desire to have half the town giggling at me.