My christmas present to myself was a kilt. Not a stuffy scots kilt, either. This is an American-style kilt, a Utilikilt. Mine is an olive-green mocker. I needed the pockets in the standard location, but I tried on a bunch of different styles. I might consider the workman's someday.

It has numerous advantages as a garment, some of which are expounded upon at One guy says it pretty well in this mock-u-mercial. (However, because it's funnier, I highly recommend this other mock-u-mercial, too.)

I personally like it because I get to be iconoclastic, I can smile wryly when people ask me what's under it, and I look good in it. Men aren't wearing enough unbifurcated garments. (Or hats, but that's a different rant) I like my toga, too, which is also unbifurcated, but it is much more restrictive. The kilt is free and easy, Lis...ah.

Unlike a scots kilt, the American-style is worn at the hips and not around the belly. Thus they ride (or sag) like pants. When I wear it, it feels a lot like baggy shorts, except they don't restrict with the inseam. There is no inseam. Thus, I can walk around with an unrestricted range of motion. I at first thought there might be some floppage, but the way the fabric hangs, everything stays exactly where it's supposed to. I can see the benefit of this on hot days when extra air-conditioning is in order.

Here are some fun kilt links for your amusement and pleasure:
Utilikilts in Seattle, WA, where I bought mine.
Utilikilts mock-u-mercial vids. More than the ones listed above. home of the bravehearts. There are some funny parts, if you can trudge through to them.
Amerikilts, a PA-based American-style kilt company.
Stillwater Kilts, traditional scots kilts.


At 1/5/05, 9:33 AM, Blogger Les said...

I was thinking how it was ironic that I found a kilt-style garment to be so restrictive and you find yours so freeing, but then the irony faded. A girl in a skirt is a girl who is disallowed or discouraged from doing cartwheels, handstands, hanging upside down from the monkey bars, sitting in unlady-like positions, etc. For the crotch is sacred and must be kept shrouded. It is to show the special nature of the female crotch that it is shrouded with such an idequate garment. this is the restriction on the female being and the female crotch instructed. The female cannot do what boys can do because the shroud is fragile, the status of virgin is fragile, the female is fragile. The female must always move as if she is wearing an inadequate shroud and is protecting the dignity of same.

boys, however, can retain their good standing under many circumstances. they too must cover themselves, but they're provided garments that allow them to do nearly anything and stay covered. and if they do transgress, as long as they are quiet about it, well, that's ok.

removed from all that social baggage and programming, yeah, a kilt or skirt might be fine. you couldn't pry me into one though.

At 1/5/05, 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny Celeste, i was thinking the same thing. Here women want to get off the skirt thing and here you revel in it. It's like we all have our own shackles.
Maybe what shackles you is what you don't have choice about, not the thing itself.

Bottom line though, you do look good in it! Who cares about anything else in life!

At 1/5/05, 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh that was me, Carol

(by the way, I thank GOD the crotch stays== shrouded, but then again,
what do I know)

At 1/5/05, 1:18 PM, Blogger Crinis said...

There is some confusion here regarding shackled vs unshackled. In the USA today, women can, and do, wear either bifurcated or unbifurcated garments (pants and skirts). This is fair. Women for too long were forced to wear dresses and skirts that were, by their design, supposed to hinder (where for fashion or for modesty or both). So they started wearing pants. People got mad. Some of the mad people died, others got over it. The end result: more garment freedom for women.

Men, for the most part, are limited to bifurcated garments, i.e. trousers. This wasn't always the case. Both men and women used to wear unbifurcated garments, and in ancient times pants were considered effeminate. The idea behind kilt-wearing, besides comfort, is to restore the mode to men as a reasonable garment for everyday wear.

At 1/5/05, 10:44 PM, Blogger Christine said...

I have to say that I am seeing more and more kilts around town. Most women are calling the phenomena "sexy." it is. not the garment itself paired with hairy legs, but the confidence it screams--I've read that in our pathetic genderizing society, a man in a skirt means to the typical pathetic American girl 'I am comfortable in my own skin and don’t care to impress little old you."
and, clearly the man sporting the garment is not trying to win approval. he is more interested in comfort. I'd guess.

Ironic, this was the same appeal generated by Katherine Hepburn’s refusal to wear skirts and hose way back when women didn't wear pants.

At 1/14/05, 6:10 PM, Blogger cxjo said...

"We're men.
We're men in tights.
We roam around the forest looking for fights.

We're men.
We're men in tiiiiights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor. That's right!

We may look like sissies,
But watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights!

We're men.
We're men in tights
Always on guard defending the people's rights."


Post a Comment

<< Home

   Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)