Rychard in black cotton drill d-ring kilt and military science fiction costume for “The Admiralty Ball”.
Not everyone believes that the wearing a kilt is symbolic of an emotionally mature man but this article on www.dividedbytruth.org argues that it is, in fact, sinful! The author suggests that kilt wearers are silly and foolish looking sissies who lack refinement, cultivation, or taste.
It only seems fair to share this information so you can decide for yourself. 🙂
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” -Deuteronomy 22:5. This Scripture naturally raises questions as to–what is men’s and women’s clothing? The Bible warns effeminate men in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate … shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Let’s establish from the start, that the Word of God condemns effeminate men. “Effeminate” in 1st Corinthians 6:9, comes from the Greek, “malakos,” which means “soft, i.e. fine (clothing).” We read in VINE’S COMPLETE EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, concerning the word “effeminate” …
“soft, soft to the touch” (Lat., mollis, Eng., “mollify,” “emollient,” etc.), is used (a) of raiment, Matt. 11:8 (twice); Luke 7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor. 6:9, “effeminate,” not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.”
Although 1st Corinthians 6:9 is clearly condemning homosexuality and cross-dressing, it is also equally clear that any form of femininity in a man is sinful. This is why Deuteronomy 22:5 condemns men wearing women’s apparel. Clearly, it is not acceptable for men to wear women’s clothing. Men are to be men! Men should talk like men, dress like men, walk like men, and act like men. Kilts on men are sissyish. Although a man wearing a kilt may be tough, the skirt makes him look silly and foolish. Although most men who wear kilts aren’t gay, it makes one wonder why any man would ever want to wear clothing that is considered women’s apparel by 99% of the population. A quick look at any bathroom door will quickly reveal that men wear pants, and women wear dresses.
Men’s Clothing Verses “Soft Raiment”
Jesus said in Matthew 11:8, “But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.” John the Baptist was rugged, as a man should be. The men who lived in the palace wore “soft” clothing, i.e., they didn’t look or act like REAL MEN. I’ve never seen a construction worker wearing a kilt. I’ve never seen a truck mechanic or a coal miner wearing a kilt. I only see men with clean jobs, or playing bagpipes, wearing kilts. Kilts are for men in the palace, not for John the Baptist type men … real men!
Did men Wear Skirts in the Old Testament?
No, they wore robes with outer skirts. This is VERY different from the skirts we see today. The photo to the right shows what men wore in the Old Testament. This is NO kilt! We read in 1st Samuel 24:5, “And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt.” David had been running for his life from king Saul. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David infiltrated the group and cut off a piece of Saul’s “skirt.” However, the Bible reveals that the skirt was simply a part of Saul’s robe, and not a skirt by itself. This is evidenced by 1st Samuel 24:11, “Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it.” Although Verse 5 says “skirt,” it is abundantly clear from Verse 11 that Saul was NOT wearing a short skirt like a women. Saul had a robe, with an outer skirt.
The FACT that men did NOT wear skirts in the Bible is further evidenced by the words of Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 3:9, “And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.” If Boaz was wearing a skirt, like many people today contend, then Boaz would have had to remove his skirt in order to spread it over Ruth. Which means Boaz would have been either partially or completely naked. This didn’t happen! Furthermore, Boaz and Ruth weren’t married until Ruth 4:13, so there was no physical relationship between Boaz and Ruth at the time of Ruth 3:9. So what did Ruth mean when she asked Boaz to spread his “skirt” over her? She was simply saying, “Take me to be yours.” She wanted Boaz to take her under his outer skirt, under his wing so-to-speak. It would be absurd to interpret this Scripture any other way.
Now think of a man in a kilt, and try to imagine how he would “spread his skirt” over someone. It would be impossible while he was wearing it. Clearly, men in the Old Testament didn’t wear the type of skirts or kilts, which some uncouth (lacking refinement or cultivation or taste) men wear today. There’s just something uncouth about a man wearing a kilt!
Women in the Old Testament also wore robes with skirts; but they were more feminine, cut differently, and made with more feminine materials. Clothing which was transparent, tight fitting, loosely worn, or exposed intimate parts of the body were considered the ATTIRE OF A HARLOT (Proverb 7:10).
by Robert J. Stewart
We believe that, in addition to looking and feeling great, the kilt is a symbol of the mature masculine. A mature man is a man who has faced his emotions, stood up, and freed himself from the social expectations of the old fashioned macho man.
The best description I have found for the new macho is by Boysen Hodgson published was on the Mankind Project website. If you score 80% give yourself a pat on the back and consider rewarding yourself with a brand new Skilt!
‘He cleans up after himself.
He cleans up the planet.
He is a role model for young men.
He is rigorously honest and fiercely optimistic.
He holds himself accountable.
He knows what he feels.
He knows how to cry and he lets it go.
He knows how to rage without hurting others.
He knows how to fear and how to keep moving.
He seeks self-mastery.
He’s let go of childish shame.
He feels guilty when he’s done something wrong.
He is kind to men, kind to women, kind to children.
He teaches others how to be kind.
He says he’s sorry.
He stopped blaming women or his parents or men for his pain years ago.
He stopped letting his defenses ruin his relationships.
He stopped letting his penis run his life.
He has enough self respect to tell the truth.
He creates intimacy and trust with his actions.
He has men that he trusts and that he turns to for support.
He knows how to roll with it.
He knows how to make it happen.
He is disciplined when he needs to be.
He is flexible when he needs to be.
He knows how to listen from the core of his being.
He’s not afraid to get dirty.
He’s ready to confront his own limitations.
He has high expectations for himself and for those he connects with.
He looks for ways to serve others.
He knows he is an individual.
He knows that we are all one.
He knows he is an animal and a part of nature.
He knows his spirit and his connection to something greater.
He knows that the future generations are watching his actions.
He builds communities where people are respected and valued.
He takes responsibility for himself and is also willing to be his brother’s keeper.
He knows his higher purpose.
He loves with fierceness.
He laughs with abandon, because he gets the joke.’
The last book written by the late Lord Dacre of Glanton also states that the Declaration of Arbroath, which confirmed Scotland’s independence in 1320, is plagued with inaccuracies and details of “imaginary” kings.
He argues that Scotland’s literary, cultural and political traditions, which are claimed to date back from Roman times, were largely invented in the 18th century.
The book, titled The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History, is to be published at the end of this month, five years after Lord Dacre died of cancer.
Its controversial findings debunk many of the cultural arguments for Scottish independence, and are likely to fuel the current heated political debate over the country’s constitutional future.
Lord Dacre, formerly Hugh Trevor-Roper, concludes in the book: “In Scotland, it seems to me, myth has played a far more important part in history than it has in England.
“Indeed, I believe the whole history of Scotland has been coloured by myth; and that myth, in Scotland, is never driven out by reality, or by reason, but lingers on until another myth has been discovered to replace it.”
He claims that the “myth” of the ancient Highland dress was perpetuated by historians to provide a symbol by which Scots could be universally identified, as well as to support the country’s textile industry.
The traditional dress of the Highlanders was in fact a long Irish shirt and a cloak or plaid, he states, and only the higher classes had woven in stripes and colours creating tartan.
“The kilt’s appearance can, in fact, be dated within a few years,” he reveals in the book.
“For it did not evolve, it was invented. Its inventor was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson.”
He claims Mr Rawlinson decided to shorten belted plaids after workmen in the Highlands, where he was staying, said they were uncomfortable.
British troops were involved in a secret plan to go into battle wearing women’s underwear, it has emerged.
The plan – recently declassified by the Public Records Office – was set up to protect World War II troops from mustard gas attacks.
Kilt-wearing soldiers in the Scots regiments were particularly at risk because their legs were exposed to the poisonous gas.
From the 1920s up until 1939, secret tests were carried out on volunteer soldiers dressed in long stockings and woollen bloomers.
Wearing underwear, soaked in protective chemicals dissolved in white spirit, volunteers were exposed to mustard gas.
The research and tests were carried out at Porton Down, the government-funded military research centre in Wiltshire.
Porton Down historian, Gradon Carter, said: “A great deal of attention was paid in those days to the impregnation of battle dress and socks with substances called impregnities.
“These were chemicals which could actually combine with mustard gas vapour to render them harmless.”
Although the tests showed the underwear did protect the volunteers, it was decided that the protective clothing would be too costly to supply to all Scots regiments.
As a result, the kilt was banned from the battlefield in 1940.
Beach + driftwood + Richard in a kilt = caber tossing action!
Just been interviewed by Pat Sharp for BBC Radio Kent. The first time it has been me doing the talking rather than the Skilts themselves.
To listen on BBC i-player click here. I’m on at 0:25.30. 🙂
All I can say is fantastic. Fit is great, wife is impressed, daughter likes, the whole thing is brilliant. Was planing for the first outing to be the Army v Navy game in May but now looking for any excuse to be able to wear it.
I will get the wife to take some photos soon, she wants to put them on her Facebook, and I will send them to you. A few colleagues have shown interest, so now I have mine, I will be taking in to work to show them.
Once again thank you and a fantastic job.
According to Andrew Bolton’s ‘Bravehearts – Men in Skirts‘ the modern style of kilt known as the ‘little wrap’ (feileadh beag) was invented in the first quarter of the 18th century … by an Englishman! The little wrap was an evolution of the ‘big wrap’ or belted plaid (feileadh beag).
The belted plaid was constructed from a large rectangular piece of material about 5 feet wide and roughly 14-16 feet long and served as garment during the day and blanket at night. In order to put the garment on the man would first pleat the cloth by hand and then secure it in place with a belt. The end of the plaid could be worn in various arrangements over the shoulder(s) to keep the weather off.
For a great pictorial explanation of how to put on a belted plaid check out the website of the Clansman Centre.
How many thousands of man days went into this daily pleating exercise? English highland dress fan Thomas Rawlinson had a bright idea that would make the kilt much easier to wear: to stitch down the tops of the pleats and so form the general style of the kilt we know and love today. How he came to invent the kilt is explained in a letter by Mr Baille of Aberiachan published in the Edinburgh Magazine in March 1785:
‘About 50 years ago, one Thomas Rawlinson, an Englishman, conducted an iron work carried on in the countries of Glengarie and Lochaber; he had a throng of Highlanders employed in the service, and became very fond of the highland dress, and wore it in the neatest form; which I can aver, as I become personally acquainted with him above 40 years ago. He was a man of genius and quick parts, and thought it no great stretch of invention to abridge the dress, and make it handy and convenient for his workmen: and accordingly directed the using of the lower part plaited of what is called the felie or kilt as above, and the upper part was set aside… It was found so handy and convenient that, in the shortest space, the use of it became frequent in all the Highland Countries, and in many of our northern Low Countries also.’
I think it is great that Scotsmen are happy to embrace good design when they see it. I’m always very pleased when a Skilt makes it’s way north of the border!