Throatpunch
Banned
Yeah, kilts seem like a good idea. Because everyone gets pissed when I go commando (I still do it though, prudish sods), and this will give me an excuse to not wear underwear.
It's generally completely idiotic that men are the ones compressing their heat-sensitive parts into trousers, whereas women, who have the opposite problem, are those who wear skirts.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
I've been saying that shit for years.
Throatpunch
Banned
Yeah thats right. I always let my balls hang. Gotta get some air circulating in there, keeping them fresh and ready for action.
Too bad classic kilts don't have pockets, which is quite annoying. And their materials are not exactly great for hiking in the woods, the thick wool catches a lot of stuff. Which is annoying, because those fuckers are expensive.
But Utilikilts are ruined by hipsters... I'm thinking about making a pseudo-kilt out of moleskin, the material german army trousers used to be made of. Maybe add some pockets for keys, phone, and wallet, although if it's mostly for hiking I could just use a webbing belt with pouches.
But Utilikilts are ruined by hipsters... I'm thinking about making a pseudo-kilt out of moleskin, the material german army trousers used to be made of. Maybe add some pockets for keys, phone, and wallet, although if it's mostly for hiking I could just use a webbing belt with pouches.
This ... actually makes somewhat sense ...
How did it come about that men wear pants and women wear skirts?
I'll take a stab at this, a brief one though. I was a Classics major in college. One thing I was interested in was ancient clothing.
From a western (Euro-centric) view, trousers were worn by people the Greeks considered barbarians, like the Bactrians and Armenians. They were also worn by their arch enemies, the Persians. The Romans carried on this tradition. They considered trousers effete and barbarous (Lever, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson, 1995, 2010). Eventually, as Rome took over more of the world, trousers were more practical for men when riding horses, working, and for warmth. Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) court dress still consisted of robes, but trousers being more often worn by men, since they were more practical. When you look at what men were wearing it was often hose with a short or long robe over it. Sometimes two pairs of hose were worn: a tight under pair and a looser over pair. Eventually, this became "long johns" and trousers.
As for women, in many ways before modern tampons and sanitary napkins, skirts made much more sense. As a modern woman, I can attest to this. If one menstruates for five days a month, it is cleaner and easier to wear a skirt. For woman, urination is also more practical with a skirt. Men can "just whip it out," women have to squat. Also, if a woman is pregnant, a skirt or dress that can be easily adjusted makes more sense. Eventually, what is common becomes traditional. From a Biblical point of view (Deut 22:5) “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This came to mean that a woman should not wear the clothing of a man, i.e., trousers. Hence, we get a traditional view that trousers are for men, skirts for women, and kilts for the Scots.
edited for clarity.
How did it come about that men wear pants and women wear skirts?
I'll take a stab at this, a brief one though. I was a Classics major in college. One thing I was interested in was ancient clothing.
From a western (Euro-centric) view, trousers were worn by people the Greeks considered barbarians, like the Bactrians and Armenians. They were also worn by their arch enemies, the Persians. The Romans carried on this tradition. They considered trousers effete and barbarous (Lever, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson, 1995, 2010). Eventually, as Rome took over more of the world, trousers were more practical for men when riding horses, working, and for warmth. Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) court dress still consisted of robes, but trousers being more often worn by men, since they were more practical. When you look at what men were wearing it was often hose with a short or long robe over it. Sometimes two pairs of hose were worn: a tight under pair and a looser over pair. Eventually, this became "long johns" and trousers.
As for women, in many ways before modern tampons and sanitary napkins, skirts made much more sense. As a modern woman, I can attest to this. If one menstruates for five days a month, it is cleaner and easier to wear a skirt. For woman, urination is also more practical with a skirt. Men can "just whip it out," women have to squat. Also, if a woman is pregnant, a skirt or dress that can be easily adjusted makes more sense. Eventually, what is common becomes traditional. From a Biblical point of view (Deut 22:5) “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This came to mean that a woman should not wear the clothing of a man, i.e., trousers. Hence, we get a traditional view that trousers are for men, skirts for women, and kilts for the Scots.
edited for clarity.
Throatpunch
Banned
A bumbag might be the solution to your problems. Everyone calls them gay but they are actually really practical.
Anyway, it transpires that during Roman times it was seen as unmanly to wear trousers and real guys wore skirts/tunics. I hope we start thinking like that again, because my ball-sack demands natural air conditioning.
Yeah, that's basically what the sporran does for the traditional kilt. And what the webbing belt/pouches would do when hiking.
Still, while I did wear my kilt when I had my knee brace on (didn't fit under jeans, was uncomfortable over them, so it was shorts or kilt during that time), it's really something that you have to pull off properly. I just lack the swag to do that
I'm seriously considering making my own hiking-pseudo-kilt, but I don't have a sewing machine and I'm too lazy stitch it all by hand...
Still, while I did wear my kilt when I had my knee brace on (didn't fit under jeans, was uncomfortable over them, so it was shorts or kilt during that time), it's really something that you have to pull off properly. I just lack the swag to do that
I'm seriously considering making my own hiking-pseudo-kilt, but I don't have a sewing machine and I'm too lazy stitch it all by hand...
Last edited:
Throatpunch
Banned
Found a pretty cheap alternative for you to think about. Not sure if you could make a kilt with it, but I am just throwing out a suggestion.Yeah, that's basically what the sporran does for the traditional kilt. And what the webbing belt/pouches would do when hiking.
Still, while I did wear my kilt when I had my knee brace on (didn't fit under jeans, was uncomfortable over them, so it was shorts or kilt during that time), it's really something that you have to pull off properly. I just lack the swag to do that
I'm seriously considering making my own hiking-pseudo-kilt, but I don't have a sewing machine and I'm too lazy stitch it all by hand...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/AMOS-Handh...9747?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1469382870&sr=1-10
Yeah, that'd be an option. But I'm generally too lazy as well
But those things are usually too weak for thicker fabrics like moleskin.
But those things are usually too weak for thicker fabrics like moleskin.
So THIS is what an realistic Asterix & Obelix comic would look like for adults.
Letting barbarians become Roman citizens was a mistake. We need to reinforce Hadrian's Wall and make the Visigoths pay for it.
Throatpunch
Banned
Do you like Asterix and Obelix? Best comics ever. Got all of them.
So THIS is what an realistic Asterix & Obelix comic would look like for adults.
I had a few as child, they are pretty cool! And also pretty accurate for a childrens comic when it came to the roman and gallic world
Throatpunch
Banned
Hell yeah! Read them for what must be hundreds of hours. Now all I need is the NSFW version.I had a few as child, they are pretty cool! And also pretty accurate for a childrens comic when it came to the roman and gallic world
And in today's issue of "Can we please just turn social sciences and scientists into biofuel so they'll finally produce some useful hot air" we learn that mountains are people, too (and thus probably sexist):
https://de.scribd.com/document/317949769/Intimacies-of-Rock#from_embed
Bonus points to anyone who actually reads the paper beyond the abstract (not even the reviewer did, apparently [who am I kidding, peer review in cultural sciences lel]).
https://de.scribd.com/document/317949769/Intimacies-of-Rock#from_embed
Bonus points to anyone who actually reads the paper beyond the abstract (not even the reviewer did, apparently [who am I kidding, peer review in cultural sciences lel]).
what the fuck did I just read and why did I read it
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Wait for plants to be people, too...
Eventually, if somebody takes them serious, we'll have to live in the damn Matrix to not offend anyone/thing.