skirtcafe.org

I I found a nice wool one at goodwill in nova scottia tartan. on me it's about midi-length, about 3 inches below knee. If you spend much time on kiltmakers websites you'll soon find out about kilted skirts intended for women. The most obvious difference between them and mens kilts are the length options. So why Is it men's kilts are locked into this knee length category, and why are so few contemporary non traditional kilt styles also knee length?

timemeddler wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 9:28 pm I I found a nice wool one at goodwill in nova scottia tartan. on me it's about midi-length, about 3 inches below knee. If you spend much time on kiltmakers websites you'll soon find out about kilted skirts intended for women. The most obvious difference between them and mens kilts are the length options. So why Is it men's kilts are locked into this knee length category, and why are so few contemporary non traditional kilt styles also knee length?

I think the standard Scottish mens kilt is as much a straight jacket as a suit is. Standard men's clothes always seem to have boundaries even when the item in question is a skirt. This is why I am not waiting for mens skirts to be a thing. I have the whole range of skirts to choose from, with no boundaries but my own.

Mouse is spot-on, the kilt community has so many rules and expectations. I order shorter kilts when I can, or just get the equivalent from the ladies selection where there's more variety.

Mouse wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:43 am I think the standard Scottish mens kilt is as much a straight jacket as a suit is.

Mouse, I don't "think", I know it is and I have been saying so for longer than I care to remember.
I simply will not wear one and that is the fundamental reason for not going to that wedding.
My choice is just not the right style of skirt, oops, kilt.
Steve.

Mouse wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:43 am I think the standard Scottish mens kilt is as much a straight jacket as a suit is. Standard men's clothes always seem to have boundaries even when the item in question is a skirt. This is why I am not waiting for mens skirts to be a thing. I have the whole range of skirts to choose from, with no boundaries but my own.

Not really? I mean tartans come in far more colors than men's dress pants. Red or yellow tartan kilts, perfectly normal. Red or yellow dress pants? Highly unusual. Men's skirts, such as kilts, indeed enable more variety compared to men's dress pants.

LiuBang wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:55 pm

Mouse wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:43 am I think the standard Scottish mens kilt is as much a straight jacket as a suit is. Standard men's clothes always seem to have boundaries even when the item in question is a skirt. This is why I am not waiting for mens skirts to be a thing. I have the whole range of skirts to choose from, with no boundaries but my own.

Not really? I mean tartans come in far more colors than men's dress pants. Red or yellow tartan kilts, perfectly normal. Red or yellow dress pants? Highly unusual. Men's skirts, such as kilts, indeed enable more variety compared to men's dress pants.

The kilt did well for me for several decades, starting with a single tartan one and ending up with about 8 of them, including several tartans, plus plain tweed, denim, and corduroy. I would happily acquire a new kilt in an interesting fabric, and I like the general effect of the knee length, deeply pleated skirt. However, eventually I became irritated by the tramlines: why should I be restricted to knee length, and pleats only at the back? I was also annoyed by sporrans, and increasingly sensitive to the wool in most of the socks, and finding it hard to get a range of cotton equivalents (I have some, sold as golfing socks, I think).

One of the skirts that I most liked in the "Fashioning Masculinities" exhibition was a knee length skirt, pleated all the way around. (It had a sort of "codpiece" element which I think I might do without, though it does make a nice point about it being a specifically male skirt.)

from what I gather prior to the victorian era kilt lengths were more varied, I've yet to find anything as extreme as a maxi or mini, but it seems the length historically varied from a few inches above the knee to maybe two below, the notion that it has to touch the knee seems to be a more modern standard.

timemeddler wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:55 am from what I gather prior to the victorian era kilt lengths were more varied, I've yet to find anything as extreme as a maxi or mini, but it seems the length historically varied from a few inches above the knee to maybe two below, the notion that it has to touch the knee seems to be a more modern standard.

Correct TM, that's just another bit of crap that passes as traditional rules for wearing a kilt.

Liu

LiuBang wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:55 pm Not really? I mean tartans come in far more colors than men's dress pants.

Also true, there is an eye watering amount of tartans which can also be turned into trousers.
Please note that The Kilt should not be called a manskirt even though it is, lots of people will object, not just Scots!
Personally, I still believe that it is the perfect pseudo or stealth skirt for many men who are not quite man enough to rise to the challenge and wear a real skirt up front loud and proud.
Fine, their choice.
Steve.

timemeddler wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:55 am from what I gather prior to the victorian era kilt lengths were more varied, I've yet to find anything as extreme as a maxi or mini, but it seems the length historically varied from a few inches above the knee to maybe two below, the notion that it has to touch the knee seems to be a more modern standard.

I recall that as recently as maybe a decade ago, I was told how men's dress pants should hit exactly the ankle, and not be so much as an inch above that. At least with kilts you can have them right below the knee all the way to right above the knee (which is significantly more than two inches).

Right above the knee also happens to be the minimum standard of formality for women's skirts. I also find top of the kneecap skirts to be the most flattering.

LiuBang wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:32 pm

timemeddler wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:55 am from what I gather prior to the victorian era kilt lengths were more varied, I've yet to find anything as extreme as a maxi or mini, but it seems the length historically varied from a few inches above the knee to maybe two below, the notion that it has to touch the knee seems to be a more modern standard.

I recall that as recently as maybe a decade ago, I was told how men's dress pants should hit exactly the ankle, and not be so much as an inch above that. At least with kilts you can have them right below the knee all the way to right above the knee (which is significantly more than two inches).

Right above the knee also happens to be the minimum standard of formality for women's skirts. I also find top of the kneecap skirts to be the most flattering.

yeah I meant two inches either above or below the center of the knee, so roughly four inches of range for "proper Kilting".

timemeddler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:25 am
yeah I meant two inches either above or below the center of the knee, so roughly four inches of range for "proper Kilting".

Meanwhile for men's dress pants it's like one inch of range for "proper panting".

Kilt rules are only restrictive if you abide by them. I have had a few Kilts made. I get them made to my specifications. My waist specifies that measurement. I like a 6 in waist band that's what I get. length or drop I have made at 18 inches, 20 inches that's at the top of the knee and 22 inches middle. I had one made at 16 inches but I do find it a bit short when sitting.
So kilts don't have to be restrictive. If the place your getting them made won't make what you want find a new supplier.

timemeddler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:25 am I meant two inches either above or below the center of the knee, so roughly four inches of range for "proper Kilting".

Or, in the terms of some idiots, "improper kilted skirting"!
The issue outlined in Mouse's thread regarding what constitutes a "real" Kilt is by no means uncommon.
There is no such creation as a truly traditional modern Scottish kilt!
By any correct and historically accurate definition, they are all merely kilted skirts!
Anyone who finds this unpalatable should check the history of how the "Kilt" evolved after 1745!
For your own sake, just don't tell a bunch of drunk Scots football fans about how much you admire their "kilted skirts"

Steve.

To me,
a kilt is a skirt but not every skirt is a kilt.

(but I only say it when outside of Scottish environment)

Just like,
a Mercedes-Benz is a car but not every car is a Mercedes-Benz.