A thesis of sorts

[Nighthawk]

(Panache takes his mod cap off)

Am I the only one on XMTS that finds that the subject of whether or not a man decides to wear underwear or not when wearing the kilt to be a private matter and one not all that worthy of discussion?

Guys I'm certainly happy if you feel comfortable but frankly it always strikes me as odd that some guys get so worked up about this subject.

They are just underwear and not the chains of oppression

Cheers

Jamie

No sir!! You are so wrong! They're The Man- holdin' me DOWN!!

[Spartan]

(Panache takes his mod cap off)

Am I the only one on XMTS that finds that the subject of whether or not a man decides to wear underwear or not when wearing the kilt to be a private matter and one not all that worthy of discussion?

Guys I'm certainly happy if you feel comfortable but frankly it always strikes me as odd that some guys get so worked up about this subject.

They are just underwear and not the chains of oppression

Cheers

Jamie

The question is not about whether or not to wear undergarments under the kilt, it's about a thesis asking about a possible similarity with bra burning of several decades ago -- an interesting question. The question was posed to us who lived through that period of time.

ForresterModern made a good summary response.

Slainte

[Colonel MacNeal]

Whether going Regimental or Queen's Rules, since I've done both, I just like the breeze. Very refreshing.

[The Barry]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me to muck up the freedom of unbifurcation with a bifurcated garment underneath. But that's just me.

[McClef]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me to muck up the freedom of unbifurcation with a bifurcated garment underneath. But that's just me.

Nor me either. Bra burning didn't come up with another restraining garment to replace them as far as I know.

[ForresterModern]

Thanks guys for the support (no pun intended). Although I do recognize that the braless era was intended to invoke a new more than symbolic freedom for women in America and the world in general, you will have to pardon me if I bask in the glorious memories of so many beauties of my youth in slinky halter tops, tube tops, bikini tops, and bra less tee shirts (not all of them dry). Ahh those were the days. Just the side benefits of a little social revolution.

[sathor]

I didn't actually expect as many comments this quickly.

In my SWKs, I actually feel more exposed in my kilt than I do with pants, unless I have my sporran on.

[Riverkilt]

Seemed to me the OP was asking for olde guy experience and that us olde guys spoke to the question.

Ron

[duchessofnc]

There is often on here discussion about what is under the kilt, what used to be under the kilt, and many many variants of such questions.

Ultimately, is it probable, or at least analogous to the 'bra burning' of yesteryear? I am to young to know of the realities of the bra burnings, but I am still left wondering if perhaps deep down the 'question' is just part of a cycle that comes and goes. IS there a large difference between a woman refusing to wear a bra and a man in a kilt not wearing anything underneath (or more accurately, both having the choice and the option to choose.)


I am interested to see what the folks of the earlier generation think.

On a purely analytical point, I really do not believe that what is under a man's kilt has anything to do with what motivated the bra burnings. The bra burnings were more symbolic of women's rights and freedoms. Let us take a snap shot of history. During the period of the bra burnings, it was ludicrous to even consider a woman as CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Women such as Hillary Clinton would have been stamped down and put in their place. The nature of a bra is to confine but was also a unique female item. Thus the women who went to participate in the bra burnings were screaming out, "Do not confine me. I am better than being the little woman belonging only to the kitchen and to make babies."

So in conclusion there really is no relevance. The choice of whether you wish to wear something under your kilt is really a matter of comfort and choice. Not a statement. On one other note, I will like to point out that wearing undergarments such as panties and underwear is actually rather new concept in the history of garments and was very slow to take hold. Initially it was only the very well to do that could afford the luxury as they were made of very fine linen.

[Riverkilt]

Duchess, you are young.

Names like Golda Meir (The Iron Lady Premier of Israel in 1969), Indira Ghandi (Prime Minister of India 1966), and Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister of the United Kingdon 1979) were CEOs of Nations and at war back then.

I think we're so flush with lovely young women there are few women on the board who lived through those times to report back.

For me, there is a parallel in each sex standing up for the freedom to wear whatever garments they choose - or don't choose - to wear.

Would for sure make a good thesis topic.

Ron
Married with a child in 1968 when the bras were burned for the media.