Men in Skirts

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sat May 15, 2004 12:52 pm

Hello Everybody,

In my homeland, the national dress for a man is a skirt, and nobody raises so much as an eyebrow about it. Together with his skirt, the man often wears a fine blouse with frilly lace down the front. And they parade about in public like this, without demur.

OK, so my homeland is Scotland, and they call the skirt a kilt, but it is a skirt nevertheless. And the blouse with the lace, well they call that a dress shirt and jabot, but it is really a fine lacy blouse.

Incidentally, the word 'jabot' is French, but it is interesting that my compatriots do not use the French word for a kilt, which is la jupe. The word 'la jupe' has only one meaning to a Frenchman; it means skirt, what else. As Dorothy Parker said, I think, "A rose, is a rose, is a rose." Or to put it in more modern vernacular, "If it looks like a duck, and if it walks like a duck, then by god it is a duck"

It is also interesting that the male kilt is identical in construction to the female kilt, so when one comes across someone dressed in a kilt, one has to look for other distinguishing features to know whether one is dealing with a man or a woman.

Fortunately there is a simple test. 'Real men' do not wear anything under their skirt, sorry, kilt. In fact, in the Highland Regiments where the kilt was worn--normally only by 'other ranks'( 'the grunts' for our American readers)--a Senior N.C.O. (Master Sergeant) would inspect up the kilt to ensure that the troops were 'bollock-naked'. This was done by means of a little mirror which was attached to the toe of the N.C.O's boot, and he would advance his foot in between those he was inspecting to check them out.

One advantage of this method of inspection was this: if the Sergeant came across a squaddie wearing lace panties under his skirt, I mean kilt, he could tell he wasn't dealing with a 'real man'. You would think that would have meant that the poor squaddie in question would then have been excused from his obligation to become 'cannon-fodder' (i.e. 'totally expendable' for those not up on British euphemisms), but no. The fact that he wasn't a real man made him all the more worthless in the eyes of his contemporaries.

So what conclusion can we draw from this? That a man can wear a skirt and a frilly blouse, but it's not crossdressing until he pulls on the lace panties? Or that it's not crossdressing unless there's a sexual element (shock, horror)? Or perhaps it's not crossdressing because it's not done to feel 'feminine'?

What do you think?

Caroline.

PS. I've never worn a kilt, but have been tempted to do so because it would allow me to to go out publically wearing lovely lingerie underneath, and nobody would know (and please don't tell me I can do that in trousers, because that's not the same as doing it under a skirt).

Virginia · Post by **Virginia** » Sat May 15, 2004 2:52 pm

Oh! Danny boy the pipes the pipes are calling from glen to glen and down the mountain side! Ah, my ancestory Scotland, what a beautiful country!
At least in Scotland one can wear a kilt/skirt/la jupe and not be labled a pervert/weird-o, etc. As for the balance of the "outfits" well a lot of additional items come into play. Make-up; forms, hose, heels, perfume, wig/hair, nails all the niceities that makes us look and smell feminine. A lot of us wear feminine items everyday under our en drab. My challenge is to see how much I can get away with with out drawing attention. A bit of masacre, maybe some light eye shadow, neutral nail polish, painted toe nails, maybe a wee bit 'o make-up, neutral "tasty" lip gloss, leather heeled shoes. Would we like to add a kilt/skirt/la jupe to that with the appropriate undies - OH YEAH!!!!
Love,
Deborah

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sat May 15, 2004 3:36 pm

Hi Deborah,

I wouldn't recommend a kilt. They're made from 8 yards of very hairy, scratchy wool (shudders). What's more, men ('real' or otherwise) are supposed to wear very thick and hairy knee-socks under it (more shudders). The net result of this is that there's only about 2inches of leg visible between the hem of the skirt and the top of the woollen stockings, so no-one would get much of a view of your luscious legs dressed in their best 10 denier nylons!

Hugs,

Caroline.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Sat May 15, 2004 3:46 pm

Hi Caroline,

That was interesting, very interesting.

When you ask what do I think, which part are you referring to? About which part, I mean?

Beauty

Josey · Post by **Josey** » Sat May 15, 2004 4:50 pm

Hi Caroline,

I've always wondered about what went on under a kilt. Thanks for letting us know.

Now, I have one bit of advice to you. If you decide to wear a kilt out sometime with all the frillies under it, be on the watch for men sporting mirrors on their shoes.

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sun May 16, 2004 2:53 am

Josey wrote: be on the watch for men sporting mirrors on their shoes.

Hi Josey,

Another thing you've got to watch out for, some guys wear fancy shoes with silver buckles! Just as reflective, but it doesn't immediately mark them down as 'peekers'.

As a matter of interest, there was a TV programme (no pun) on here recently about voyeurs who went around with fancy cameras filming up women's skirts. Normally they did it where people were forced into close proximity with each other, public transport etc.

So, Josey, if you see a guy lying on his back on the pavement with a 16mm Bolex clutched to his face, for god's sake don't step over him.

Take care,

Caroline.

Gaven McLaren · Post by **Gaven McLaren** » Sun May 16, 2004 2:56 am

As an avid Kilt wearer I can tell you that it does not have to go 2 inches above the knee. As for the 8 yards of wool that is true but does make a handy blanket when you are cold and trying to sleep and have forgotten your sleeping bag. As for the question that is most likly running through most of your heads as you read this the only thing under my kilt is my boots. If you go to the photo area you can see my in my Kilt from a work Halloween party.

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sun May 16, 2004 3:02 am

Beauty wrote: which part are you referring to? About which part, I mean?
Beauty

Hi Beauty,

The part between your ears!

Please don't take that unkindly, it's not meant that way, just my stupid sense of humour.

You can respond from any perspective you like.

Take care,

Caroline.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Sun May 16, 2004 6:51 am

Well if I respond that way (between the ears) you know my answer is "ummmmm?"

Josey · Post by **Josey** » Sun May 16, 2004 7:14 am

Caroline wrote:
So, Josey, if you see a guy lying on his back on the pavement with a 16mm Bolex clutched to his face, for god's sake don't step over him.

Take care,

Caroline.

Caroline,

Thank you so much for the tip. I will make sure I remember it. If I see that guy, I might treat him to a 3 inch heel!!

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sun May 16, 2004 8:00 am

Gaven McLaren wrote:As an avid Kilt wearer I can tell you that it does not have to go 2 inches above the knee. As for the 8 yards of wool that is true but does make a handy blanket when you are cold and trying to sleep and have forgotten your sleeping bag. As for the question that is most likly running through most of your heads as you read this the only thing under my kilt is my boots. If you go to the photo area you can see my in my Kilt from a work Halloween party.

Hey Gaven,

I know you know this, but I just thought I'd share it with the others, and your post seemed a good place to start, particularly as I want to reply to some of your other comments.

Kilt length: the length of a kilt is supposed to be such that if the wearer kneels upright on the floor, the hem of the kilt at the front just touches the floor. Trouble is, you see guys at weddings and the like who have obviously hired it for the occasion, and the only way they can wear it at the proper length is if they have the waist pulled up to near their armpits. You can imagine how ridiculous that looks.

Use as a blanket: A good point Gaven, though I am sorry to hear that you're homeless and that you have to sleep out on the streets, wrapped in your kilt.

Incidentally, that's just what highland men used to do when they were bedding down in the heather, or perhaps even when they were bedding down with Heather.

Your picture: I couldn't find it, though I did find your web-page. Great site; I admire you courage at being so public, I really do.

I also visited your other web-site re free speech, and I can only endorse all you say.

Regards,

Caroline.

Jessie · Post by **Jessie** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:59 pm

I thought I would post something I saw yesterday at my cities annualy (...) parade. I observed sevral high schools (I belive with scottish backgrounds) that had students wearing kilts. one one groupe I observed I saw female and males both wearing a kilts wit hte same design then toward the back there was another male who wore a complety different design kilt than the other members. I found that intersting. Oh yea the front of the band had nearly 15 bagpippers. An addition not all of them where waring the kilts. Anouther school I saw a little later on had the whole band wearing kilts all the same but not one bagpiper. Intersting??

Jessie

Cami · Post by **Cami** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:47 pm

Actually, Kilts are comming into Vouge. I have seen them being worn on Tech TV by a few of the show hosts & "Geeks". And they are gaining popularity in the Punk community also. Try this link for a uhhhhh well boy mode skirt lol http://www.utilikilts.com/ wow I just noticed the price on these things!!! Might be best to just try to pass off a pleated skirt as a Kilt lol

Gaven McLaren · Post by **Gaven McLaren** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:58 am

Caroline
I was at a Ren faire though may as well have been homeless for the weekend as my tent was not setup well due to no room. As for my pic you go to http://crossdressers-forum.com/photo_intro.htm and you will find my pic there as well as a pic of me in my High neck speedo. So you found my other sites cool then have you also looked at my Yahoo bio? You will see another of my Ren Faire outfits. Thank you for the info on kilt length though it does contradict what I was told when I started doing faire.

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:05 am

Gaven McLaren wrote:Caroline
I was at a Ren faire though may as well have been homeless for the weekend as my tent was not setup well due to no room. As for my pic you go to http://crossdressers-forum.com/photo_intro.htm and you will find my pic there as well as a pic of me in my High neck speedo. So you found my other sites cool then have you also looked at my Yahoo bio? You will see another of my Ren Faire outfits. Thank you for the info on kilt length though it does contradict what I was told when I started doing faire.

Hi Gaven,

Thanks for the info--I'll look at the links you gave me in just a moment.

Maybe the links you've referred me to explain it, but if not, can you please tell me what a Ren faire is? I don't know the term at all.

The info on kilt length is absolutely gen and 'official'; if you were told otherwise you were misled, I'm afraid. Having said that, there's no reason why one shouldn't wear a kilt of any length one likes--fancy a mini, anyone?

Another thing, you say that all you wear under your kilt is your boots, but one advantage of wearing those horrid hairy knee-socks is that one can also carry the sgian-dhu. I'm sure you know this, Gaven, but for those who don't, the sgian-dhu, or 'black knife' is a small dagger worn inside the right sock. Traditionally, the blade was made from a broken broadsword, and the pommel would be counterbalanced with a semi-precious stone, like a Cairngorm, so that the knife could be used for stabbing or throwing. In the UK, where it is a crime to carry a knife, it is legal to carry a sgian-dhu if one is wearing a kilt.

I mention the last point in case anyone is thinking of visiting the UK, and might be tempted to mug a man wearing a kilt.

Kind regards,

Caroline.