Breeching
The Kiltmaker's Comer
To Breech or Not to Breech: That's The Underlying Question
First published in the Scottish-American in November-December 1986
By Bob Martin, FSTS
"Oh, what does a Scotsman have under his kilt? Da-dah, da-dah." Really, now, is it all that important? What does a woman wear under her dress? What does a man wear under his trousers? What does one wear under the bathing suit? Who cares? Furthermore, whose business is it, anyway? Having received a number of pertinent letters, I believe it is apparent that the air should be cleared from both historical and practical viewpoints. Therefore, this will not be a pro-and-con presentation, but one of pro only for both sides of the question.
There is no question but that history is definitely on the side of the unbreeched kilt. The following is from unpublished works of the late John L, Kinloch, MA, FEIS of Dunbartonshire.
"I suppose you know that in the army it is still (1966) a punishable 'crime' to be caught wearing anything under the kilt, and men may be examined at any time to find out. There is ample evidence that this habit has been maintained rigorously by all Celtic peoples from 500 B.C. and from Ireland to the Black Sea, where St. Paul found the Galatians, who 'went about almost naked.' The Gallia Bracata of the upper Rhone Valley and the Belgae were the only exceptions. There is ample evidence that the Hebrews and Jews never wore breeches. The correct translation of the priests' breeches is loincloths, and Ezekiel says these were only worn when the priests went out to the Gentiles' court (sic) to sacrifice, and taken off when the priests returned to the Temple. .. . Plato considered that men were not properly trained for citizenship if they had not exercised naked pubiicaly (sic). The proper translation for... [gymnastics] is nudity. I do not suggest that Scots should practice nudity, but that the unbreeched kilt is a tradition learned not from naked savages but from the greatest nations of ancient times."
From Nature, Dec. 21,1957:
"In an exploratory experiment, we investigated the effect of normal clothing on the scrotal temperature of men aged 20-40 years.... The observed difference in temperature gives at least the order of magnitude of the rise in temperature affecting the genetic material of that part of the human race which wears clothes of the European type.. .. The fact that our modes of dress have been predominant for several centuries might explain almost half the present load of spontaneous mutations.'.. . If the eugenists regard this increase as dangerous, the design of male clothing will have to be reformed, for example, in the direction of the Scottish kilt."
A Nobel Laureate Speaks
From a Readers Digest article in 1962 by Dr. Edward Teller: "Our custom of dressing men in trousers causes at least 100 times as many mutations as present fallout levels, but alarmists who say that continued nuclear testing will affect unborn generations have not allowed their concern to urge men into kilts." And again from John L. Kinloch: "The argument of the Swedish scientists (in Nature). . .is based on the fact that in male animals, the sex cells are produced in organs outside the body, because, if these cells were produced at temperatures equal to those within the body, dangerous spontaneous mutations in the structure of the cells might occur which might harmfully affect .future generations. . . . This tends to confirm a belief on which 1 have been experimenting for a number of years, namely that the coolness and freedom of these same external organs, which the kilt allows, is very important in the production of hormones, which, in turn, stimulate the internal ductless glands which control physical development and mental alertness. ... In one school where I taught, many of the boys wore the kilt, and in the course of my general investigations, my interest was aroused to the possible effect of clothing on physical development and mental alertness. I first took a dozen kilted boys (unbreeched) and dozen trousered 'controls.' At the end of a year, the average gain in weight of the kilt-wearers over the trouser-wearers was seven pounds. Increased mental alertness appeared noticeable, but was not easily registered."
From the standpoint of sheer comfort, the unbreeched kilt wins far and away. The foregoing should certainly put in good stead any argument FOR the unbreeched kilt.
Now, to the Breeching. . . .
Now, to the breeching of the kilt. The only good and sensible reason for the wearing of undies (and I do mean undies, NOT Bermuda shorts, basketball shorts, etc.) with the kilt is out of deference to someone or something. Many men may feel, and with good cause, that should their kilts fly up, exposing them to the world, it would be an embarrassment to their wives or children.
Many men may wear underwear out of consideration for the general public which, perhaps, might be embarrassed, especially here in the States. The deference may be for the man's church, Or his employer, or even for himself. Though a man may very well desire to wear his kilt unbreeched, he must be respected and not chided for putting his own wants second. Some men, on the other hand, must wear underwear with their kilts for medical or physical reasons. Whatever the reason, no explanation should be required.
Problems sometimes arise with kilt-wearers when people, mostly in fun, attempt to find out for themselves what there is beneath the kilt. I feel these attempts occur mostly with the younger set of kilted men. With older men, the tries would be far fewer, if at all. I've never had my kilt touched by strangers with the thought in mind of seeing what there was to see. If one is rather embarrassed to wear the kilt in public, and shows it, then that one had best be prepared for such onslaughts or leave the kilt at home. I believe one's self-assured bearing has very much to do with the public's reaction to seeing the kilt. Of course, the entire affair can be handled by ignoring the situation. After all, it's the other person's problem, not ours, isn't it?