the unseemly question

**sharpdressedscot** · 12th May 08, 06:35 AM

It depends on the weather, we don't want a wind malfunction in front of little kiddies...or do we?

**jmercier** · 12th May 08, 07:04 AM

A lot depends on the weather and the situation. I find that a pair of black lycra biking short style underwear works best if your'e going to be doing something like hiking or a lot of walking because... well there's a lot to chafe down there, and many people dont realize how much friction there is when things swing freely.

When wearing my nice wool kilt, for the reasons Steve mentioned, I feel that a pair of black boxer briefs is the way to go.

Just going out for a night at the bar? Dont need much underneath then. The key though is... always keep the mystery alive if you're asked "the question" Wether you're regimental or not, just be vague ! That's half the mystique of the kilt to people who dont wear one. When asked what i'm wearing under my kilt... I always just answer "shoes and socks of course"

**Macman** · 12th May 08, 10:17 AM

I put "regimental always" because I can count the times I've worn underwear with a kilt on two hands. That isn't to say I wouldn't do it again. I understand that everyone will have their own preference and when people ask my advice, I always tell them it's up to the wearer's discretion.

**Jack Daw** · 12th May 08, 01:35 PM

I voted the truth, but I ain't tellin'. There's women in here!

**Eujeankilt** · 12th May 08, 02:34 PM

No matter what the kilt, regimental always. With my wool kilts, i wear boxers with the center cut out-no leg holes. Yes, it's like a slip, but no one sees but me. It's a comfort thing for me. Wearing underwear is too much like wearing pants. I wear the cut out boxers for comfort as well. Wool tends to make me itch.

Dale

**Alaskan Kilted Guy** · 12th May 08, 02:50 PM

I voted on mood. Circumstances dictate whether or not I will be regimental. Ditto to a bunch of previous posts, kids, work, and the like. Now that we have perpetuated "the question".....

**Woodsheal** · 12th May 08, 03:02 PM

Consider the history behind going "regimental." To the 18th century man - Highlanders included - your shirt WAS your underwear, whether wearing knee breeches, trousers, or a kilt. The long shirt-tails of the time reached to the knee, and were tucked up and often pinned between the legs to form a sort of under-drawers. Some shirt-tails of the period even featured buttons for this purpose.
So, even when going "regimental", the historic Highlander was separated from his kilt by long linen shirt-tails. It wasn't a conscious decision to "not wear underwear." He was in fact wearing the exact same underwear as everyone else: a long shirt...!

**DTrain** · 12th May 08, 03:25 PM

With my wool kilts, i wear boxers with the center cut out-no leg holes. Yes, it's like a slip, but no one sees but me.

This sounds like a boxer-skirt-underwear kilt under your kilt. Why? Why not just wear boxer shorts or briefs (or crotchless underwear, if freedom is needed).

I vary depending upon the situation. It also maintains the mystery.

**Dukeof Kircaldy** · 12th May 08, 04:03 PM

This is true.

The highlander would never go into battle wearing the kilt. despite what some people think, the kilt was too constrictive to fight in. Kiltless highlanders sounds like the ultimate secret for success in warfare. Imagine a couple of hundred or more Scotsmen (say a couple if thousand) coming after you with nothing on and carrying weapons.

You'd probably runs as well. I don't care how brave you claim to be.

Seriously, the shirt was so long that they were still covered.

That kinda takes all the fun out of the story.

Originally Posted by Woodsheal

Consider the history behind going "regimental." To the 18th century man - Highlanders included - your shirt WAS your underwear, whether wearing knee breeches, trousers, or a kilt. The long shirt-tails of the time reached to the knee, and were tucked up and often pinned between the legs to form a sort of under-drawers. Some shirt-tails of the period even featured buttons for this purpose.
So, even when going "regimental", the historic Highlander was separated from his kilt by long linen shirt-tails. It wasn't a conscious decision to "not wear underwear." He was in fact wearing the exact same underwear as everyone else: a long shirt...!