Kilts

Because our modern interpretation of what it means to be a man isnt the same as the Scottish one.

>>2617078

Why would it not be?

>>2617078
Easier access to their boypussy

File: gallowglass and kern.jpg (119KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x640px

>Historically
Well, it's currently acceptable. It's actually coming back into fashion a bit where I am. You sometimes see guys in kilts just on a night out rather than only at weddings and big parties.

Gaels did wear trousers historically but they were very tight and more like leggings than breeches.

File: William_Wallace.jpg (509KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2197x1463px

>>2617078
Because Scotland and Scottish loins are free!

Pants only came into existence when riding horses became plausible. Horses were otherwise unruly and only good as beasts of burden until they were more thoroughly bred after the bronze age. The saddle, bit and stirrup helped too but didn't altogether come until later.

>muh war horses

Those were all chariots with really shitty wheels. Everyone wore kilts, long tunics or straight up dresses (e.g. togas) before pants became more convenient because of frequent horse riding.

Pants as universal clothing is a pretty modern thing.

>>2617078
The better question is why it became 'unacceptable' to wear them.

>>2618618
it's feminine

>>2618618
Usually compared with skirts, thus feminine. I would definitely wear one, looks comfy

>>2619960
>>2619973
It sucks that this is true, kilts are comfy as fuck. Its the reason girls wear skirts all the time

>>2619973
>>2619960
I don't think it looks feminine. It just seems too culturally specific to Scotland to not look weird walking around in it, like if I put on a kimono and went about my day.

>>2620039
Makes sense. l'm from a part of the world with a lot of Scottish ancestry. You'll see kilts and bagpipes at parades or the occasional wedding or whatever, but outside of that its gonna look weird as shit.

Technically speaking pants are more suited for women due to lack of dangly bits and kilts are far more suited to men

>>2620039
t. crossdressing femboy

File: rt705g.jpg (95KB, 432x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 432x600px

why did romans wear dresses lmao are they little girls

File: georgi-georgiev-cossack-warrior-rend.jpg (433KB, 1018x1854px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1018x1854px

>>2620525
not the anon you are replying to but..
Bro have you even seen the historical alternative - (exluding whatever you call those MC hammer pants the based zaporozhians wore)?
Kilt>woolen hose AAANNNY DAY
My nuts need to be free for me to swing my "great sword" properly.

>>2620549
Why do Cossacks look so Muslim?

>>2617078
I think the more interesting question is why the skirt became an exclusively male dress.

File: figure03.jpg (124KB, 995x643px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 995x643px

>>2620583
Well the zaporozhians were basically russians with influence of mongols and BTFOing the Muslim for dozens of years so they adapted some wartime stratagems as well as cultural morays. I strongly recommend you look up this painting. Definitely my favorite artwork based upon context.

File: 1481153489212.jpg (16KB, 298x220px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 298x220px

>>2620595
The more interesting question is why the skirt became an exclusively male dress before Catholicism became the default religion if you get my drift

File: Franklin-Roosevelt-1884.jpg (160KB, 600x768px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 600x768px

For much of the middle ages and early modern period, all toddlers and young children wore robes, skirts, or dresses, as it was easier for the child to go to the bathroom and easier for caretakers to clean them. Girls would continue to wear dresses all the time, while boys would eventually be "breached" where they would wear breaches (pants) for the first time, usually around age 7 or 8. After the development of running water and washable and disposable diapers, this was phased out, but still persisted in some traditional and "old aristocracy" families into the 1900s.

Pic related, this is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the greatest President of the United States, in a dress before he was breached.

>>2620618
>greatest president of the united states
Muh fuggin Bull moose party... why dont you btfo the shitty liberatardians and come back into relevancy :(

>>2620627

You are getting your Roosevelts mixed up, friend. You are thinking of Teddy I think.

File: george_washington.jpg (45KB, 530x664px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 530x664px

>>2620618

>FDR
>Greatest President of the United States

Good joke senpai

>>2617415
Did William Wallace actually dress like that or would he look more like the traditional conception of a knight from that era?

>>2620549
>use fire and sword character but not the great battle scene
>>2620583
Maybe because they were nomads, steppe nomads but nomads none the less

>>2620614
>why did skirt become feminine before ((Catholicism))
Niqqa wat, the full priest uniform could be described as a dress

File: 1487781199452.jpg (275KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 707x1000px

>>2620886
He'd look like any other big ass mailed knight.

>>2620627
>the roosevelts are the same I say
>>2620880
>liking the guy who was going to do a military coup but Benjamin Franklin talked him out of it

To provide easy access to their bots.

Celts are sexual degenerates.

File: Galloglass & Kerns.jpg (112KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 600x448px

>>2617411
They also went without pants frequently, actual kilts aren't recorded until the 16th century but they had a lot of similar stuff.
Mostly brats and the leine which left their legs bare.

>>2618618
>The better question is why it became 'unacceptable' to wear them.
It never did. Where the fuck are you people getting your information.