"Man" Bags?
- MrNaturalAZ
- Distinguished Member
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:47 am
- Location: The Arizona Desert
Re: "Man" Bags?
I'll carry a bag if I must, but much prefer pockets. That's why I like Utilikilts and similar cargo/utility kilts. With everything in pockets that are attached to me, I feel my items are more secure and less likely to be stolen or accidentally left behind somewhere. That's one reason why I'll rarely wear a sarong out much farther than around the yard or to the neighbors - tho if I do have to carry things while in a sarong, I'll wear a small bag attached around my waist (often called "fanny packs" - though I dislike that term, and find it to be inaccurate as well, since I wear the bag in FRONT, as do most other people, and not on my "fanny").
No shirt, no shoes, no pants, no gods. No worries!
Re: "Man" Bags?
In England we call them "bum bags" which is just as inaccurate. I believe, but could be wrong here, that they were called bum bags because they were originally worn on the back when cycling, where they are just above the bum, and just re-used on the opposite side of the body when walking.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
- MrNaturalAZ
- Distinguished Member
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:47 am
- Location: The Arizona Desert
Re: "Man" Bags?
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Wouldn't want to wear it behind like that while walking tho - never mind that it would look silly, it would be an invitation to theft.Sinned wrote:In England we call them "bum bags" which is just as inaccurate. I believe, but could be wrong here, that they were called bum bags because they were originally worn on the back when cycling, where they are just above the bum, and just re-used on the opposite side of the body when walking.
No shirt, no shoes, no pants, no gods. No worries!