moonshadow wrote:
I mean... is a utilikilt truly a kilt? Or just a man-skirt. This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not sure, nor am I am authority on the subject.
Definition of a kilt; Merriam-Webster dictionary
1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt
Definition of a kilt; Cambridge Dictionary - in English
a skirt with many folds, made from tartan cloth and traditionally worn by Scottish men and boys
Definition; Cambridge Dictionary - in American English
a skirt with many folds, made from tartan cloth and traditionally worn by Scottish men and boys, but also worn by women and girls
They are not my definitions so please direct any disagreement towards the original authors.
With consideration to the above definitions, a utilikilt (or similar) would be a pleated, wrap skirt with pockets, unless it was tartan and resembled a Scottish kilt.
moonshadow wrote:So with that in mind, it seems kinda silly to me to plunk down hundreds of dollars for the coveted "it's for a man" label when five bucks at the GoodWill can purchase the same comfort, feel, style, and yes some even have pockets and belt loops.
Now a traditional kilt is in a class all it's own. No arguing that from me.
I quite like the look and practicality of the utilikilt style, at least the short ones (usually designated as women's) but with international postage and exchange rate they are far too expensive. Like moon and others, I get enjoyment from buying something that I like for a few dollars.
The other day I purchased a mini skirt with belt loops (also with a matching belt) and 13 pockets! all for less than $20 including postage. I will be counting those pockets when it arrives.
My name is Anthony, please accept me for the person that I am.