skirtcafe.org

My daughter sent me this link: http://www.styleite.com/media/kilt-commando-debate/

I hope to get a kilt soon and I would never go commando in it.

Traditionally, Kilts are worn commando. Just like having a Sgian Dhu stuck in your sock. Of course, the dagger has to be left home for an airplane trip. You just have to learn to squat to pick anything up instead of bending at the waist.

Since1982 wrote:Traditionally, Kilts are worn commando. Just like having a Sgian Dhu stuck in your sock. Of course, the dagger has to be left home for an airplane trip. You just have to learn to squat to pick anything up instead of bending at the waist.

Because of my medical condition (which I won't go into because it would be against House Rules), I couldn't if I wanted to, but tbh I wouldn't want to.
Sayonara!

I experimented with commando style kilt-wearing during the hottest days of summer. It was helpful during the 90+ days, so I will likely do it again next summer. In general, however, I grew up in a household that insisted upon BVD's, thus, that is the habit I have formed since my youth and as such, more likely to be so clad.

...and that's all I have to say about that!

BVD I'll have to look that one up!

Oh, right. Bovine viral diarrhoea? No, the brand of unmentionables then.

Egad....

BVD is a brand of men's underwear, which are commonly referred to as "BVDs." BVD stands for Bradley, Voorhees & Day, the New York City firm that initially manufactured underwear of this name for both men and women. BVD is now only for men. It was founded in 1876 and named for its three founders.

JRMILLER wrote:BVD stands for Bradley, Voorhees & Day, the New York City firm that initially manufactured underwear of this name for both men and women.

Now that is something I did not know, and thanks for that, John. We shall see if it gets me any points in trivia contests.

BVD is now only for men.

Are you sure on that count? Back before I settled into the blissful life of a married man (cats, chickens, and all) I knew a couple of gals that wore men's underpants under their daily wear. I never understood why....

Carl,
I suppose the relevant question is, if a gal is wearing BVD's, is she crossdressing? I would say yes, unless they were made specifically for a woman's anatomy. Given all the choices women show us in their daily dressing, I doubt they would ever feel the need to wear BVD's (at least most).

That's an interesting link. Even the professional story tellers make mistakes in sentence construction. Case in point>>>

The site:The pro-underwear movement was started by kilt rental companies, but earlier this week, the Scottish Tartan Authority gave them their full support.

The word "but" is the wrong word for that usage. "and" is the correct word.


It should say: The pro-underwear movement was started by kilt rental companies, and earlier this week, the Scottish Tartan Authority gave them their full support.

I know I'm picky, but I like to see things looking like the intelligencia wrote them. Not the ignorancia. (I've submitted this word to Webster's for addition to the current dictionary. Best way to get it accepted is to use it.)

Since1982 wrote:That's an interesting link. Even the professional story tellers make mistakes in sentence construction. Case in point>>>

The site:The pro-underwear movement was started by kilt rental companies, but earlier this week, the Scottish Tartan Authority gave them their full support.

The word "but" is the wrong word for that usage. "and" is the correct word.


It should say: The pro-underwear movement was started by kilt rental companies, and earlier this week, the Scottish Tartan Authority gave them their full support.

I know I'm picky, but I like to see things looking like the intelligencia wrote them. Not the ignorancia. (I've submitted this word to Webster's for addition to the current dictionary. Best way to get it accepted is to use it.)

I was taught that you don't use a comma and an "and" together, one or the other, not both. Or didn't that pointless grammatical rule make it across the Pond?

It should, by my reckoning, have been either this...

The pro-underwear movement was started by kilt rental companies and earlier this week the Scottish Tartan Authority gave them their full support.

...or...

The pro-underwear movement, started by kilt rental companies, was earlier this week given the full support of the Scottish Tartan Authority.

...or...or...

(I think the last one is the most compact and punchiest version)


Pete

.......Or this one: The Scottish tartan soc. has a vested interest in capitalising on garment sales and promote the sale of undergarments too, as that brings in more punters/cash/spondulicks!

(This comment is from the desk of the High Priest of Ignorancia.)

Tom K.

Underware as we know it today is a recent invention, as cited in the comment identifying BVDs. Folks used to wear very long tailed shirts, tucked into britches or kilt, that served the same purpose as underware. Also, hygiene 200 years ago was a bit more loose than today's dictates. Perhaps it would bear rephrasing as grooming was defined differently. One can be clean and hygienic without modern prissiness.