KiltyCol wrote:Casual kilts are reasonably practical, with cargo pockets and belt loops all round. Scottish kilts, although comfortable, don't have pockets, so you need a sporran, which gets in the way of the steering wheel if you are driving. I usually unclip the sporran for a long drive. I think that kilt manufacturer's could improve practical details, and reduce prices. A skirt with pockets that doesn't need a pin or a sporran is generally much cheaper than a kilt, as we have already discussed. Price is important to most people.
I still don't agree that skirts have to be exclusive to women, when women can freely choose to wear anything that is made for men. There is a discriminatory attitude there. Anything that ends any type of discrimination is likely to be a way forward.
If kilt manufacturer's could produce a more practical and budget price product, I think that it would sell better.
I have never wanted to look effeminate, but just enjoy a comfortable and practical garment without a crotch. My wife chose to buy me my two Scottish kilts and I chose the denim casual kilt. My wife certainly wouldn't want an effeminate looking husband, but does care that I can enjoy life and be comfortable. She does like to see men in kilts.
Quite a few people do regard kilts as a type of skirt, e.g. the lady who said "I like your skirt" meaning it sincerely as a compliment.
That's a bit better. Thank you.

However... first point, discrimination is a fact of nature. Period. End of Statement. Fini! There is no getting around it. Every life form discriminates in some way or another, and the more intelligence that life form posesses, the more it discriminates. If you believe that some things are good and others are bad, then
YOU discriminate.
This notion of ending any and all forms of discrimination is what the left wing is all about, this is why they are mentally stunted, they can't accept right or wrong, good or bad. So they strive to bring everything to an even plane, and attack that which is good, and elevate that which is evil.
So on that very basis, your comment is invalid.
People are people, and genders have certain things they are attracted to. This is partly from society, but largely from biology. This is not going to change. Ever. Because it comes from within our DNA. It's what we are.
Also, your comment that women can wear men's clothing without re-proach is incorrect as well. A woman shopping in the men's dept. will likely be assumed to be shopping for her boyfriend, but if she's trying it on and buying and wearing it, she'll be viewed at BEST as a "tomboy", but in all liklihood, more as a bull dyke. Yes, guys love lesbians, as long as they are hot lesbians, not manly lumberjacks. lol Tomboys are also on the fringes of appeal, some go for it, but most want a girl who is a bit more feminine - even if she can build and drive extreme rock crawlers. (ie, a "tomboy" might be hot for her interests and abilities, but only if she "cleans up nice")
Let's face the facts - when you talk about skirts in this context, meaning, as opposed to the kilts which you cite as being over priced and impractical, you
ARE referring to items residing exclusively in the women's clothing departments, and you are fully aware of this. This demonstrates precisely what I am talking about - there is a difference, and skirts are made for a woman (their hips, their legs, their overall body shape which differs greatly from ours [damn those designers, discriminatin' again....

] ). For a man, to voluntarily go into the women's dept. and shop for, try on, like, and buy (for himself) an article of women's clothing, it does not matter if it's a skirt, a pair of th0ng pantie$, strappy high heels, a bustier, garter belt and
stockings, blouse, pearl necklace, or some bangles - it's all the same thing, a man feeling exceedingly effeminate and wishing to dress like (and particularly in) women's clothing. Chances are he even gets a charge out of it (specifically because they are women's clothes).
This is not normal, and it's not something straight masculine men do, and it's not something straight (or even bi, really) women are interested in or attracted to.
And before anyone says it, YES, there ARE exceptions - people win the lottery and get struck by lightning too, doesn't mean it's likely to happen though.A real man would pony up the cash and get something made for him. Either from a traditional store, or from Utilikilts - if that's REALLY what he (or his girl) wanted. If he could not afford it, he would not buy it until he could. Period.
This is why Alf says that men don't wear skirts. And why I back him up on that. It IS a fact. Yes, people like davidhawkes who likes to tuck his little parts between his small thighs may like to prance around in a skirt, ashamed of his own masculinity, but that's not a
man.
I fully beleive we should have more lattitude to maneuver when it comes to "fashion" - the same old suit and tie is boring as hell. But we are getting there - Europe has re-embraced the
Thong for men, and the Japanese have been wearing them as underwear for the last 2000 years (and while it waned post WWII in the wave of American fever, it's seeing resurgeance as swimwear), even here in the States it's starting to pick up momentum as women are finally realizing that men with the right
assets actually do look good in them (so long as they are MADE for them). Sandals are finally taking off again (traditional footwear of men throughout most of recorded history, warriors especially, and many gods and angles as well). Even more unusual jewelry like ankle bracelets and toe rings are making the scene now.
The rules are STILL different, and they will remain so. But the point I'm trying to make is, we can match them, or gain the flexibility we want through items MADE FOR US, not made for them. Doing so only hurts the idea.
Furthermore, it's also a matter of economics. Keep buying the skirts and you will ensure that kilts never come down in price. Which further ensures that it won't be "the way forward" for men at all.