Mini-kilt suitability

**McClef** · 14th July 07, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by sporranlegionaire

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.)

Clearly not a case for regimentality certainly!

I'm old enough to remember the mini skirts - I didn't like them either.

**Hamish** · 14th July 07, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by McClef

Clearly not a case for regimentality certainly!

I'm old enough to remember the mini skirts - I didn't like them either.

Trefor, I too remember them the first time around and, like you, did not much like what I saw. We see them now being worn over jeans - may the Saints preserve us!!!

Actually, I think mini-kilts could look very good on the right sort of guys - young and slender! I mean, think of the Greeks and Romans in their short, skirted tunics. Not that I remember that far back (!), but if the guys in 'Troy' and 'Gladiator' were anything to go by, they looked pretty good and masculine to me!

**McClef** · 14th July 07, 01:55 PM

But the Greeks and Romans tended to wear a "one piece" garment such as a chiton Hamish, rather than a separate kilt-like garment, nor were they pleated.

It could have additional decoration on top, especially in military situations such as leather thongs hanging from a belt.

I can't say that a mini kilt would not suit any guy whatsoever but I am not sure that I have yet seen one that does. Perhaps it's one of those situations where a tartan doesn't help and where a plain colour would look better.

**ccga3359** · 14th July 07, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by McClef

But the Greeks and Romans tended to wear a "one piece" garment such as a chiton Hamish, rather than a separate kilt-like garment, nor were they pleated.

It could have additional decoration on top, especially in military situations such as leather thongs hanging from a belt.

I can't say that a mini kilt would not suit any guy whatsoever but I am not sure that I have yet seen one that does. Perhaps it's one of those situations where a tartan doesn't help and where a plain colour would look better.

Would it still not be considered cross-dressing (there I said it). Is the world or even XMarks ready for it?

**McClef** · 14th July 07, 03:35 PM

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

**Kid Cossack** · 14th July 07, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Hamish

Trefor, I too remember them the first time around and, like you, did not much like what I saw. We see them now being worn over jeans - may the Saints preserve us!!!

Actually, I think mini-kilts could look very good on the right sort of guys - young and slender! I mean, think of the Greeks and Romans in their short, skirted tunics. Not that I remember that far back (!), but if the guys in 'Troy' and 'Gladiator' were anything to go by, they looked pretty good and masculine to me!

300, Hamish! 300!

**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.

**ccga3359** · 15th July 07, 08:30 AM

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.

**MacWage** · 15th July 07, 10:31 AM

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:"