CommanDO or DONT

[binx]

Hello...."underwear" can also be an underkilt - a slip-like garment that is also unbifurcated. I wear them with my kilts to protect my kilt from me while still maintaining FREEDOM.

Yes, some kilties say that wearing a slip-like garment under the kilt is feminine - but that makes absolutely no sense to me since it is as unbifurcated as the kilt itself. If the kilt is masculine then so is the unbifurcated underwear worn underneath the kilt.

You can have both hygiene AND freedom - even in the kilt rental business.



And does not Freedom Kilts still offer a very long tailed shirt for this very purpose??

I totally agree. Wear them everytime I'm kilted. Where can one get an underkilt these days? I still have three JDEZ ones, but will need to replace them some day.

Binx

[Riverkilt]

Alex had a source in England I think.

I was hoping SOMEONE ELSE would try doing business with J'Dez again and see what happens....

[cessna152towser]

Alex had a source in England I think.

I bought some kilt liners via eBay from Anna Manning Porter of GBK Enterprises of Florida USA. She produced kilt liners in polyester and in cotton in a range of colours. Last I heard was an e-mail from her daughter a few months ago to say that Anna had had a heart attack and then taken pneumonia. I have tried to contact her more recently but had no response. It looks like these may be no longer available.
However it is a relatively easy job to stitch the lower portion of an old teeshirt, cut off at the bottom of the armpits, onto an old Jockey waistband to produce a cotton kilt liner.

[BroosterB1]

I totally agree. Wear them everytime I'm kilted. Where can one get an underkilt these days? I still have three JDEZ ones, but will need to replace them some day.

Binx

Un-bifricated Boxers ! I Love it!

Awe some Tats Ron. Just Awesome. I've seen your back piece, but that chest piece is wicked. What is the symbol above the heart? Zia? It fuzzes out at high zoom.

Blessings Brother

[string]

As for traditional underthings during the 18th century in general I feel I can intelligently comment.

The common inner layer for men seems to be the shirt, which generally come nearly to the knee, untucking your shirt tails is "airing your dirty laundry. This seems to be a pattern that was broken very rarely. In fact most 18th century documents refer to a man shirtless as naked, no matter what he might have on the bottom, and dressed indicates there is a shirt on, not breeches or otherwise.

I have however seen 18th century underdrawers, they were linen, very very rare, and cut to the same lines as the breeches that would be worn over them, only with strings instead of button. It is surmised that they were meant for warmth more than modesty.

18th century women had the shift, which is similar to the shirt in shape, if differently cut at sleeve and neck, and it is longer, past the knee typically. Even when women began to wear bifucated garments having the womanly areas completely enclosed was considered unhygenic, although for a very short period in the early 19th century tights were very common, but that was due to the extreme sheerness of the current style

[robbiethepiper]

Officers mess regulations of the British army pre-1939 insisted that officers wear underwear if there was to be dancing or if ladies were present...... Common sense and care for others should sometimes over-ride personal preference?

[Jack Daw]

I bought some kilt liners via eBay from Anna Manning Porter of GBK Enterprises of Florida USA. She produced kilt liners in polyester and in cotton in a range of colours. Last I heard was an e-mail from her daughter a few months ago to say that Anna had had a heart attack and then taken pneumonia. I have tried to contact her more recently but had no response. It looks like these may be no longer available.
However it is a relatively easy job to stitch the lower portion of an old teeshirt, cut off at the bottom of the armpits, onto an old Jockey waistband to produce a cotton kilt liner.

Too bad about her health, and to a lesser extent, that her product is no longer available. Good thing I bought six from her when I did.

[Mark E.]

As Woodsheal pointed out, back "in the day" one's shirt was considered underwear.

In my avatar photo, I'm dressed early-to-mid 1700s style with a feileadh mor and jacket, waistcoat, shirt, neck stock, bonnet, hose, and buckled shoes. The shirt is an 18th-century style with a single button at the neck (though you can't tell because of the stock) and long sleeves, and the tail goes down to just an inch or so above my knee.

In proper fashion for the period, you can't see my underwear -- the shirt -- at all.

I follow the same rule of thought as well. It boils down to what you are doing, however, and common sense. If I expect to engage in physical activity where modesty will take second to keeping my head from being knocked off, or otherwise, I have been known to carry a pair of tan compression shorts in the bottom of my sporran (it's a big one for a reason!). Thataway, they can imagine what they want-and if confronted by the Watch, I can back up my side, and let them think what they will. Over there with King Geordie's lot.

Mark