|
-
14th July 07, 03:35 PM
#1
Which did you have in mind Grant - the mini kilt or the chiton?
In the eyes of many any unbifurcated garment would be viewed as such
[B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="1"]Reverend Earl Trefor the Sublunary of Kesslington under Ox, Venerable Lord Trefor the Unhyphenated of Much Bottom, Sir Trefor the Corpulent of Leighton in the Bucket, Viscount Mcclef the Portable of Kirkby Overblow.
Cymru, Yr Alban, Iwerddon, Cernyw, Ynys Manau a Lydaw am byth! Yng Nghiltiau Ynghyd!
(Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittany forever - united in the Kilts!)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
-
-
15th July 07, 08:30 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by McClef
Which did you have in mind Grant - the mini kilt or the chiton?
In the eyes of many any unbifurcated garment would be viewed as such 
That would be the kilted mini-skirt. What Romans wore 2000 years ago as they were bringing civilization and roads to my cave dwelling kin was the norm. Today, my personal thoughts, of the modern mini kilt would be cross-dressing to me. Allow me to qualify this, I am considering the variety the kind as shown by our F-H.C.A.G. has displayed for our enjoyment. It is about 12" - 16" length kind that I sure would hardly protect the modesty of the average man. This is what I considered as the kind that Staticsan was referring too in his initial post (my apologies if I'm in error).
As I see it this would be a man in womens clothing, certainly not for me, but all the power to him. Typically it would be none of my business should another man choose to dress as such. If I were to make it my business it would be in the positive. My main concern is that so many others would not or cannot share my believe of acceptance.
-
-
15th July 07, 10:31 AM
#3
 Originally Posted by ccga3359
That would be the kilted mini-skirt. What Romans wore 2000 years ago as they were bringing civilization and roads to my cave dwelling kin was the norm. Today, my personal thoughts, of the modern mini kilt would be cross-dressing to me. Allow me to qualify this, I am considering the variety the kind as shown by our F-H.C.A.G. has displayed for our enjoyment. It is about 12" - 16" length kind that I sure would hardly protect the modesty of the average man. This is what I considered as the kind that Staticsan was referring too in his initial post (my apologies if I'm in error).
Similar to my intended thoughts.
To me:
"Mini-kilt"= MID thigh or HIGHER. Some hang just below the "bum."
MOST of my kilts are worn ABOVE the knee. So, I DO NOT consider an inch or 2 above the knee to be a "mini-kilt," rather it is a shorter kilt.
So, PLEASE consider my "Absolutely Not!" comment in THAT light.
FHCAG-> thanks for "lightening" the mood with your posts.
Also:
A GREAT "kilt accessory:"
-
-
15th July 07, 07:25 PM
#4
To paraphrase a certain cartoon character: "Kilt are for men, you silly . . ."
A shorter kilt is OK, but a mini kilt! I don't know about you guys, but I can't cross my legs like the gals can so I appreciate the kilts fabric and the sporrans weight.
Past President, St. Andrew's Society of the Inland Northwest
Member, Royal Scottish Country Dance Society
Founding Member, Celtic Music Spokane
Member, Royal Photographic Society
-
Similar Threads
-
By Erisianmonkey in forum DIY Showroom
Replies: 6
Last Post: 30th April 07, 08:35 PM
-
By Alan H in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 55
Last Post: 19th April 07, 01:24 PM
-
By Red Lioness in forum Show us your pics
Replies: 28
Last Post: 3rd September 06, 09:03 PM
-
By O'Neille in forum Show us your pics
Replies: 18
Last Post: 22nd August 06, 02:19 PM
-
By agileman in forum Kilt Nights
Replies: 0
Last Post: 21st March 06, 03:18 PM
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks