Chris Webb

Under the Kilt

Recommended Posts

I have to say that this has been an interesting read. I haven't been wearing the kilt but for about 8 months, but I've never experienced any problems about Texas law, and I'm always regimental. I'm also very aware of my surroundings, the wind, and who's near...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that this has been an interesting read. I haven't been wearing the kilt but for about 8 months, but I've never experienced any problems about Texas law, and I'm always regimental. I'm also very aware of my surroundings, the wind, and who's near...

As anyone with 12 stones well should be!

The double standard IS alive and well. Sure I'm not the only one who has been in public places where women were trolling with very thin white cotton skirts or slacks wearing a black thong beneath for all the world to know. Even at at Atlanta Americas Mart recently saw one in the thinnest possible linen harem style slacks where the thong was overwhelmingly obvious. Too, who ever checked the ladies who so often go sans culottes?

Get a grip America. I can't even count the number of times I have been asked the question...and I am far from being a Charles Atlas. The years are cruel. The worst was at a pub while photographing a halloween night for the owner and standing up on a long pub bench. When I felt that sudden rush of cold air and turned, it was to see A GUY holding up the kilt. He swore it was for the girl next to him! Are white briefs REALLY that exciting? At least I had followed my mother's old advice re going out and never knowing when you will end up in a hospital. NUFF SAID from me! Probably, TMI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that was fun reading that whole thread again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so for the record (is anyone keeping score here?) I almost always go regimental when out and about.

I AM however very aware of my surroundings.

If I am going to an event I know there will be kids, or that it just wouldn't seem appropriate, I wear boxer briefs.

I enjoy the freedom, but I prefer not to offend anyone, despite the fact they may just be to uptight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so for the record (is anyone keeping score here?) I almost always go regimental when out and about.

I AM however very aware of my surroundings.

If I am going to an event I know there will be kids, or that it just wouldn't seem appropriate, I wear boxer briefs.

I enjoy the freedom, but I prefer not to offend anyone, despite the fact they may just be to uptight.

As President and founder of the local Kilt checkers Society in your area I may have to determine the validity of your last statement....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As President and founder of the local Kilt checkers Society in your area I may have to determine the validity of your last statement....

You know I'm not that bashful...check away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I'm not that bashful...check away...

If only all men wore kilts and had that attitude....... SIGH....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have posted something ages ago, but I can't remember. As for myself, I go regimental when wearing my kilt as much as possible. If I'm actually on the field playing paintball in one, I wear a pair of compression shorts. If I'm going somewhere that there will be little children who might consider grabbing hold of my kilt, flipping up my kilt, or even managing to grab something underneath my kilt, I wear a pair of boxer-briefs or compression shorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS 11.41.460. Indecent Exposure in the Second Degree.

(a) An offender commits the crime of indecent exposure in the second degree if the offender knowingly exposes the offender's genitals in the presence of another person with reckless disregard for the offensive, insulting, or frightening effect the act may have.

( B ) Indecent exposure in the second degree before a person under 16 years of age is a class A misdemeanor. Indecent exposure in the second degree before a person 16 years of age or older is a class B misdemeanor

AS 11.41.458. Indecent Exposure in the First Degree.

(a) An offender commits the crime of indecent exposure in the first degree if

(1) the offender violates AS 11.41.460 (a);

(2) while committing the act constituting the offense, the offender knowingly masturbates; and

(3) the offense occurs within the observation of a person under 16 years of age.

( B ) Indecent exposure in the first degree is a class C felony.

The laws here are pretty clear. A wind gust while regimental is not indecent exposure. It could be uncomfortable and awkward, but not illegal. I DO wear boxers when kids are going to be around, at work, or any other time I feel the highest degree of modesty is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws here are pretty clear. A wind gust while regimental is not indecent exposure. It could be uncomfortable and awkward, but not illegal.

It's the same in Texas... there has to be intent.

§ 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an

offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with

intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he

is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or

alarmed by his act.

(B) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same in Texas... there has to be intent.

§ 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an

offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with

intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he

is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or

alarmed by his act.

(B) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

The trouble is that this phrase of the law, "and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act," is almost entirely left up to the police officer who investigates the report. Wearing a pleated garment on a windy day without underwear in a public place may well be deamed 'reckless' by the officer who has no understanding or appreciation of Kilting or the Scottish Traditions behind it.

Furthermore the phrase, "intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person," includes the person in the kilt, not just those who saw you! Believe me when I say that there are many Conservative citizens (like most policemen) who will assume that you went without underwear and failed to stop this from becoming public with the intent of gratifying your own deviant need for public sexual excitement.

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but it's just wishful thinking that today's society would greet you with encouragement and understanding if your genitals become part of the public scenery ... the average person barely gets why we wear kilts, it really isn't reasonable to think the average police officer will just laugh off a complaint, saying, "Oh, it's OK, he's in a kilt, that makes all the difference!" Nope, he'll at the very least wonder about your lack of prudence for going about Walmart without containing your junk ... and then he may well leave it to a Judge to make the final decision.

If the Judge gets it, well, you'll likely win the case, but not until after your name has been published in the local paper ... oh, they'll print a followup, but don't expect it to get near the attention your arrest got. From then on you'll be the guy around town who didn't wear his underwear, worse, you'll be the guy in the kilt community that caused greater scrutiny to be applied to us all by our local governments.

Last, State Laws only provide the framework for Local Laws, which are based on Community Standards ... Mansfield, Texas, for instance, has a law against wearing clothing that purposely allows the underwear to be seen, yep, it's the law and it's stood up under scrutiny because it is based on Community Standards. When I work in Mansfield, where I've already survived one encounter with the police, I wear compression shorts under my kilt, not underwear.

So, Anybody here live in a community where the standards include going about in a pleated skirt without underwear? I didn't think so.

Kilt ON! Kilt Carefully.

Chris Webb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that this phrase of the law, "and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act," is almost entirely left up to the police officer who investigates the report. Wearing a pleated garment on a windy day without underwear in a public place may well be deamed 'reckless' by the officer who has no understanding or appreciation of Kilting or the Scottish Traditions behind it.

Furthermore the phrase, "intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person," includes the person in the kilt, not just those who saw you! Believe me when I say that there are many Conservative citizens (like most policemen) who will assume that you went without underwear and failed to stop this from becoming public with the intent of gratifying your own deviant need for public sexual excitement.

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but it's just wishful thinking that today's society would greet you with encouragement and understanding if your genitals become part of the public scenery ... the average person barely gets why we wear kilts, it really isn't reasonable to think the average police officer will just laugh off a complaint, saying, "Oh, it's OK, he's in a kilt, that makes all the difference!" Nope, he'll at the very least wonder about your lack of prudence for going about Walmart without containing your junk ... and then he may well leave it to a Judge to make the final decision.

If the Judge gets it, well, you'll likely win the case, but not until after your name has been published in the local paper ... oh, they'll print a followup, but don't expect it to get near the attention your arrest got. From then on you'll be the guy around town who didn't wear his underwear, worse, you'll be the guy in the kilt community that caused greater scrutiny to be applied to us all by our local governments.

Last, State Laws only provide the framework for Local Laws, which are based on Community Standards ... Mansfield, Texas, for instance, has a law against wearing clothing that purposely allows the underwear to be seen, yep, it's the law and it's stood up under scrutiny because it is based on Community Standards. When I work in Mansfield, where I've already survived one encounter with the police, I wear compression shorts under my kilt, not underwear.

So, Anybody here live in a community where the standards include going about in a pleated skirt without underwear? I didn't think so.

Kilt ON! Kilt Carefully.

Chris Webb

You bring up some good points Bro! That's why we have lawyers and judges to hash this stuff out, create case law etc. I am fairly certain that community standards are quite different there in the bible belt than they are out west where I have been raised. I do know many women who choose not to wear undergarments when wearing skirts and or dresses. Does this mean it is a community standard? Strip clubs in Texas don't allow full nudity. It is expected in Alaska. I can also say there was a case a while back where a topless woman was arrested here in Alaska for indecent exposure, and the case was dismissed. Women can be topless here if they choose to. It is not illegal, and no one has gone and tried to make it illegal. More of a live and let live attitude.

More food for thought...

None of this was to argue, just add to the discussion, there are many perspectives out there... think for yourself and take the choice that makes sense for YOU....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that while you might not inherently break the laws that were mentioned here by going regimental, you could end up having a Police Officer charge you with disorderly conduct or other similar charges instead.

There is also the fact that most indecent exposure statutes use the terms 'knowingly', 'purposefully', 'willingly', or other words that tend to denote that it was done on purpose.

Also, keep in mind that in a lot of places being convicted of indecent exposure in some areas carries with it an additional part that could have you end up on sex offenders lists as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been a great discussion ... Alaskan, you're observation that Community Standards vary greatly is spot on, the Bible Belt can be bizzare at times. And Pain, here in Texas it is very easy to get on that Sex Offender list and nearly impossible to get off of it ... it makes it nearly impossible to find a place to live or even get a job because all 'offenders' are treated equally from the worst rapist to the streaker.

Every kiltman has to come to his own conclusions and wear his kilt the way he wants to ... I go Regimental sometimes, inspite of all I've written, but I'm danged careful about it ... it's a paradox, most of the time for me Regimental just isn't wise, but there really are times that it is nearly required, in both cases due to social expectations and/or restraints. In a way I don't get to decide when I go Regimental, no, the reality is that the decision is often made for me because I choose not based on my desire but on the expectations of others, interesting.

Kilt ON!

Chris Webb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this has been a great discussion. It's funny cause even though Houston is in Texas, it doesn't feel like part of the bible belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this has been a great discussion. It's funny cause even though Houston is in Texas, it doesn't feel like part of the bible belt.

I know what you mean, I think it has something to do with the influx of people from all over the world into the city of Houston ... the same goes for Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and other larger cities. Fort Worth just ain't there yet, though it is on its way. Burleson (where I live), as well as most other small towns, have not yet had a large enough influx of 'outsiders' to water down the old 'Bible Belt' population and the BBers are putting up a real fight to keep things from changing ... thankfully it's a losing battle for them.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, humm REI do think that Sportmens warehouse could have some too? REI does not have a store near me for like 350 to 430 miles to where I am...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, humm REI do think that Sportmens warehouse could have some too? REI does not have a store near me for like 350 to 430 miles to where I am...

not familiar with "Sportmens Warehouse". basically you want anything labeled something to the effect of "moisture wicking". heck, most big box stores are starting to carry stuff like that now. but the better quality garments of that ilk would be found at specialty places like REI, Dick's, Cabela's, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always regimental, of course ! It's better for me !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always regimental. If I'm concerned about the situation, NO KILT! The freedom is the biggest issue for me. As fpr being kilt checked, ain't skeered! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i always wear boxer breifs with my kilt. im just more comfortable that way. i dont really care if anyone gets a free show but physically i like having some kind of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regimental just seems like a bad idea in public.

Decency laws have way too many gray areas for you to be safe in public while regimental. The biggest danger has to be the concept of "intent." If you have exposed yourself in a public setting, even if it is an accident, you are at the mercy of the perception of those around you. If the authorities are involved in the situation, odds are it is because someone has called them. That person called because they were offended by your exposure. The question of "intent" comes down to their opinion as to whether or not you did it on purpose against yours. Who do you think the cop is going to side with? Are they going to side with the concerned citizen or the guy in a skirt wearing nothing underneath that he probably has all sorts of preconceived notions about? Now if the person you offended with your dangley bits happens to have a child with them, or is a minor themselves... now you've got a whole host of other problems. Hello sex offender registry list. They could construe things so that it looks like a guy out in public wearing a kilt with nothing under it is no different than a guy running around in the park naked under a trench coat. Freedom is one thing, but taking unnecessary risks is another. Maybe I'm too cautious, but it just seems silly to not throw on a pair of boxers before you head out the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm too cautious, but it just seems silly to not throw on a pair of boxers before you head out the door.

That's not being cautious thats being smart in my book. I read somewhere that according to regulations in the Highland Regiments that when dancing or when women and children are present undergarment will be worn under the kilt. The way I see it if it's good enough for them then it's good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now