Are we better off without pants?

[antisocialmunky]

Ever since western civilization has had the congnizance to look at back on its past, it has been just a tad obsessed with the fact that people did not always wear pants, but some combination of tunic/skirt. So I ask this question, was the adoption of pants from the Indo-Iranians really such a good idea?

-The pants + shirt uses more cloth than a tunic or the shirt + skirt combo. Thereby costing more time in labor and skill to produce which could have been put to other things like... well not weaving pants! Weavers could have specialized in other things like metallurgy and stuff.

-Pants are more intricate to make. A toga or tunic takes less man hours.

-Despite being useful in cold weather, most people live in low-mid latitudes and pants actually increase the amount of surface area that radiates heat. If instead you had a single tube with foot holes that was flexible enough to allow comfortable movement, you could save heat.

-Over-tight pants decrease fertility and I for one don't like my junk getting in a bind.

-It takes less time to put on a tunic or skirt + shirt combo. Those man hours over the period of several centures would add up big time and lead to mroe time to do other things like science.

So EBers, are pants worth it? Think of all the time, energy, and resources that would have been saved if people weren't making pants and instead other forms of clothing? :yes:

(yes I expect a 100% serious discussion about how pants have retarded progress in the western world. But seriously, why did we end up with pants vs other forms of bottom clothes? Seriously, why did pants take over?)

[Caveira]

Banquet for thought


My take on it: you're a travestti! :idea2:

no seriously, actually, it sounds reasonable, there's nothing we can do now though

[A Very Super Market]

Well, you don't need to worry about scraping bare skin if you're wearing pants.

[Ibrahim]

well, arabs conquered more land than the romans, while wearing Kilts:clown:

I guess its a good idea to dress in a dishdashah (arabic for "long tunic"). Its loose and comfortable, and it protects legs just as well as pants.:yes:

my grandad used to wear it when he was alive.:yes:

[Fluvius Camillus]

It's late night here so it's rather a funny discussion.

I think pants are good, because they offer some more protection. The little things that may hurt your legs are taken by the pants, ideal for workmen who work outside.

~Fluvius

[m046720]

I feel pants are the way to go. no animals can crawl up to your what-not.

[Watchman]

And less frostbites on your wossnames during cold winters.

Also, pants have pockets. /discussion

[DaciaJC]

Also, pants have pockets. /discussion

Indeed. The reason I prefer sweatpants, among other practicality-related reasons, is because of the "loose", deep pockets which I frequently make use of.

[Andy1984]

The vast amount of clothing we consider normal should be sufficient to prove the choice for pants is not only the result of a rational analysis, but rather a cultural one imo. Seriously: is their any real argument pro to wear underpants? Or a shirt beneath a sweater? Or shoelaces? Or...

Not to mention the fact even dressing ourselves is in the vaster part of modern life not exactly useful but for a cultural reason. I mean, it's not like we wear clothes because we'd freeze to death in most parts of the world. Protecting my legs on the other hand would be useful if I was climbing a mountain, walking in a forest or working on some timber. When driving a car or sitting on a comfortable chair there's no real need for pants nor tunics. ~;)

Andy

[antisocialmunky]

And less frostbites on your wossnames during cold winters.

Also, pants have pockets. /discussion

... You can put pockets on anything. Its like... you sew a patch of cloth onto your choice of clothing and you has pocket.

You could probably figure out other ways to prevent frostbite but the amount of surface area pants provide isn't exactly helping you conserve heat.

[Moros]

+ 1
If you have nothing to contribute. Don't contribute. Posting to up you're postcount is ridiculous. Noone judges you on your amount of posts. The content on the other hand.

Also spamming isn't tolerated. It's against the rules. Breaking rules results into a banishment from this forum.

[DaciaJC]

Sorry. I merely wished to sound my agreement with Watchman's post. Here, let me edit my original post.

[A Very Super Market]

The vast amount of clothing we consider normal should be sufficient to prove the choice for pants is not only the result of a rational analysis, but rather a cultural one imo. Seriously: is their any real argument pro to wear underpants? Or a shirt beneath a sweater? Or shoelaces? Or...

Not to mention the fact even dressing ourselves is in the vaster part of modern life not exactly useful but for a cultural reason. I mean, it's not like we wear clothes because we'd freeze to death in most parts of the world. Protecting my legs on the other hand would be useful if I was climbing a mountain, walking in a forest or working on some timber. When driving a car or sitting on a comfortable chair there's no real need for pants nor tunics. ~;)

Andy

For comfort, really. What if your pants/sweater is scratchy?

[Moros]

Sorry. I merely wished to sound my agreement with Watchman's post. Here, let me edit my original post.

Well than just state that isntead. A simple seconded would have worked, or even a QFT. Which isn't much work typing. posting +1 only promotes people to start spamming and posting +1's as well.

Edit:

Indeed. The reason I prefer sweatpants, among other practicality-related reasons, is because of the "loose", deep pockets which I frequently make use of.
Now that is a post! ~:)

[Watchman]

... You can put pockets on anything. Its like... you sew a patch of cloth onto your choice of clothing and you has pocket.Sure. But are the other garbs with pockets on - these days, mostly jackets etc. - even half as convenient and "always with you" as pants ?

You could probably figure out other ways to prevent frostbite but the amount of surface area pants provide isn't exactly helping you conserve heat.OTOH you can ensure your legs and groin alike are more or less all the time properly insulated from the cold, protected from direct contact with snow and simply the cold air, to a degree at least shielded from getting wet, there's an extra insulating layer over them... all without having to meaningfully sacrifice mobility, the arc of movement of your legs, having a really heavy long coat hang from your shoulders (though in really cold weather people don a greatcoat for extra warmth, natch), and so on and so on.

There's good reasons why trousers, or shorts-and-hose arrangements largely similar to them in practice, have been so darn popular in the northern parts.
...also, since when did the Celts and Germans and whoever pick up trousers from the Iranic nomads ?

[HunGeneral]

Hmmm. Interresting question.

I think the fact that we wear pants today could be a result of modern or near past cultural effects (after all if I remember right then Herodotus mentions that the Skythians and/or Persians wore pants, but views this as a sign of barbarism - even some EB units descriptions mention that Hellenes looked at pants as a clothing of Barbarians).

However it could have had practical reasosn aswell: many nomadic peoples (who had an extensive horse riding tradition - so most of them rode horses al day) seem to have used pants as a constant part of their clothing because it is more confoteable and easier to ride in and protects the legs, the skin and other important parts better then any clothing similar to a toga or a kithon could (they seem to have used underwear similar to what we have today for the same reasons). Plus some of these peoples lived in colder regions then say Numidians, Romani, Arabs and Hellenes so it also helped to defend against the cold. (we also know that later on Romans also wore pants on the northern frontier to keep there legs warm)

Most not Mediterranean European peoles seem to have preferted pants out of similar reasons.

Why it became dominant later on I can't say for sure.

(Interresting fact however: I heard that Jeans were originally meant for miners - because these where very resistant and though clothes which would not get used of so fast (the miners often neded to slide down shafts which were too step or too smal to pass normally - no better way to ruin your clothes).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a riding and or cold thing. Hence in England it went trousers-hoes-breaches-trousers.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The problem is not whether its cold or warm or neither. It is never actually very cold in the Netherlands: 0-5 °C is a proper "winter" here. During summer temperatures may actually stay at 15-20 °C when it rains rather a lot but they "can" go "up" to 25-30 °C: those are common when it is sunny. 35°C or more is exceptional though.

However it is very humid. Going to Italy in say April you may get temperatures that the Dutch dream of when they think "summer". However the air so much more dry that it feels roughly equivalent to 20 °C in the Netherlands: pleasant, not too sweaty. You can walk for a day in Rome (been there done that) with about 30 °C without feeling too drenched in sweat, whereas a 30 mins bike trip will melt you far worse in the Netherlands when it is that kind of temperatures. I doubt a woolen toga would feel very comfortable compared to the already sticky and uncomfortable sweat-soaked cotton T-shirts.

About winter temps: then the humidity of the climate ensures that what may very well be nearly 5 °C in the shadow feels far, far, far colder than -7 °C in say 200km into Germany.

If you don't understand what I am illustrating: dry air is by all means a very good way to insulate yourself. It is by far the most practical and is in fact the way animal fur "works": trapping bodily heat in a layer of insulating air. It works because air doesn't dissipate heat very much: it doesn't flow very much, it doesn't radiate very much (in any case: your body radiates much, much more) and it certainly conducts very poorly. By comparison water simply soaks up heat (which is why a refreshing bath/shower is the preferred way to cool down on a hot summer's day): it flows a lot, it conducts reasonably well (and has a relatively large J/(kgK) coefficient which means that it must "suck" up a lot of energy per kg before it heats up by one degree). This means that a wet climate as is common in the North does a lot more to suck up heat and if you want to cool down the fact that a lot of water is in the air won't help you much because it interferes with your built-in cooling system: your sweat cannot evaporate very efficiently because the air is already so humid.

However insulation works only well if you "do it properly". Cut out a large hole in your "vacuum flask" and see how good its thermal insulation is now.

EDIT: As for the practical relevance of that: it means that pants/t-shirts and similar are a very "universally useful" piece of clothing. It works here, it works down in South Africa too.

[Whatever Scortamareva]

It's not too much of a discussion I don't think. Saris or long tunics don't allow for as much armour and movement when compared to shirts and trousers. Riding a horse wearing a tunic is throwing away your bloodline, and naturally it moved on to favouring standard clothes (now). While being cultural, I don't think the world has lost anything by dressing this way, it's not like in the amount of time lost putting trousers on we'dve found the meaning of life :clown:

[Fluvius Camillus]

The problem is not whether its cold or warm or neither. It is never actually very cold in the Netherlands: 0-5 °C is a proper "winter" here. During summer temperatures may actually stay at 15-20 °C when it rains rather a lot but they "can" go "up" to 25-30 °C: those are common when it is sunny. 35°C or more is exceptional though.

However it is very humid. Going to Italy in say April you may get temperatures that the Dutch dream of when they think "summer". However the air so much more dry that it feels roughly equivalent to 20 °C in the Netherlands: pleasant, not too sweaty. You can walk for a day in Rome (been there done that) with about 30 °C without feeling too drenched in sweat, whereas a 30 mins bike trip will melt you far worse in the Netherlands when it is that kind of temperatures. I doubt a woolen toga would feel very comfortable compared to the already sticky and uncomfortable sweat-soaked cotton T-shirts.

About winter temps: then the humidity of the climate ensures that what may very well be nearly 5 °C in the shadow feels far, far, far colder than -7 °C in say 200km into Germany.

If you don't understand what I am illustrating: dry air is by all means a very good way to insulate yourself. It is by far the most practical and is in fact the way animal fur "works": trapping bodily heat in a layer of insulating air. It works because air doesn't dissipate heat very much: it doesn't flow very much, it doesn't radiate very much (in any case: your body radiates much, much more) and it certainly conducts very poorly. By comparison water simply soaks up heat (which is why a refreshing bath/shower is the preferred way to cool down on a hot summer's day): it flows a lot, it conducts reasonably well (and has a relatively large J/(kgK) coefficient which means that it must "suck" up a lot of energy per kg before it heats up by one degree). This means that a wet climate as is common in the North does a lot more to suck up heat and if you want to cool down the fact that a lot of water is in the air won't help you much because it interferes with your built-in cooling system: your sweat cannot evaporate very efficiently because the air is already so humid.

However insulation works only well if you "do it properly". Cut out a large hole in your "vacuum flask" and see how good its thermal insulation is now.

I (also?) live in Holland, todays weather was 26ish, but I was sweating after a walk of an hour, and I wore no jeans, I wore swimming pants, still the heat was much, most actions would make you sweat and working would make you tired in no-time. I'd rather have a cold winter where I can ice skate, and when I can sleep under 3 layers of blankets at night... mmmm...:2thumbsup:

~Fluvius

Sorry, I'm wandering off from the subject, clothing has become a cultural thing, we no longer need to survive cold winters, as stated before, sitting at home does not require clothes, but in the past millennia we developed decency:yes:

[Cimon]

(Interresting fact however: I heard that Jeans were originally meant for miners - because these where very resistant and though clothes which would not get used of so fast (the miners often neded to slide down shafts which were too step or too smal to pass normally - no better way to ruin your clothes).

That's the story behind Levi Strauss's original jeans. In California in the 1850s, he was selling blue denim pants to miners who arrived during the California Gold Rush of 1849 (which is where the sports mascot '49ers comes from, at least in reference to a California team) and after. The miners preferred the jeans to normal pants because they didn't wear out as fast. The copper rivets that reinforce jeans pockets were added when one particular miner kept coming in to Strauss's store to purchase more cloth to reinforce the pockets as they kept ripping. Strauss got the idea to add the copper rivets as a way to strengthen the pocket. The original patent for Levi's is actually for the copper rivet.

I have no idea if the story is apocryphal, but I suspect there is at least some truth, even if it's been embelished.

[bobbin]

I think the wind would also factor when living on the atlantic seabord, wouldn't like to brave a scottish winter in a Khiton.


ps about jeans the story seems to be somwhat apocryphal in that he didn't invent them

[Azathoth]

I thought denim clothing/jeans were first used by farm laborers? I don't remember where I got that though, so...

[Watchman]

Denim is old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim).

[mountaingoat]

i am all for getting rid of pants (for the most part), bringing the tunics back , and also getting rid of toxic clothing materials ...

[Vasiliyi]

I for one have to say that Pants are overrated. Honostly, if i could, i probably wouldnt wear them. It gets so humid here in minnesota that its unbearable to wear pants. Shorts are ok, but pants, meh.

Although, because of the decency thats expected out of me by my peers, i wear pants. :thumbsdown:

[Azathoth]

Well, fine.

But 500-600 years isn't as old as your misleading stament led me to believe. :furious3:

EDIT: Another argument for pants is that with tunics if a man falls down everyone gets boxer-flashed (or worse).

[miotas]

If anyone here has ever been in 40+ heat then you will know that the less skin you have exposed to the sun the cooler you will be, plus you avoid having nasty burns, I can't imagine how painful a sunburnt penis would be, I'm cringing just thinking about it :sick: Of course the best item of clothing to keep you cool when it's hot is a big floppy broad brimmed hat, even better is a flap cap(but those look daggy :tongue:)

[Aemilius Paulus]

It gets so humid here in minnesota that its unbearable to wear pants.
Is that so? I often seen Minnesota cited as the US 2nd coldest state. And usually low humidity will follow cold. Not to mention, humidity does not matter if it is cold - the reason humidity hampers our performance is due to the fact it impedes the sweating-evaporating-cooling process, which should not matter if you are chilly/freezing. Or is it just the summer?


I can't imagine how painful a sunburnt penis would be, I'm cringing just thinking about it
Hmm, not nearly as bad as it being sore from too much solitary "sexy time", as Borat put it, that is characteristic of most of today's male teens. In fact, I daresay sunburn would only improve the condition of the general adolescent populace by lowering STD rates (you have to be out of your mind to have coitus with your Johnson burned like that) and the phalluses will enjoy some freedom from the regular oppression and sadism of the hands...

[Andronikos]

Of course the best item of clothing to keep you cool when it's hot is a big floppy broad brimmed hat, even better is a flap cap(but those look daggy )
Or that Arabian dress mentioned by Ibrahim. Actually if it wouldn't look weird I would wear turban or hat all summer.

Back to topic. I believe that underwear has many pros. One of the the most prominent is that it protects against infection (especially women who have shorter urethra). Infection of urinary system could be really nasty (haven't experienced myself fortunately).

[Vasiliyi]

Its true, our winters are cold, but our summers are mild/cool (sometimes) and very humid. In fact, this entire week has been pretty humid. Sorry for the OT.

To make this post decent, id like to add that I probably wouldn't want to wear a toga, so pants/shorts are all that are left.

[miotas]

Or that Arabian dress mentioned by Ibrahim. Actually if it wouldn't look weird I would wear turban or hat all summer.

I agree that it would be cooler, but I don't think it would be as practical as trousers, and why is wearing a hat when it's hot weird?
I do:embarassed:

[Aemilius Paulus]

So what would Romans wear in/near the Alps, in the winter?

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I think pants were introduced by eastern peoples who used them for riding horses. Their use would have become common in roman-barbarian kingdoms, i think. Anyway, they are obviously better for riding and for rough terrains, where larger tunics would become trapped by plants, spikes, and other similar.

All of this is IMHO, i've no historical evidence of that.

@Aemilius- they wear their standard clothes, i think. Culture is hard to change, even if you are freezing your jewels XD

[Power2the1]

Personally, I wear both pants and my kilt whenever it suits my fancy. Mainly, though, its to show a little bit of pride in my Scottish ancestry and, in my own way, fight a minuscule battle against the 'sheep-like' conformists putting a damper on one's own personal expression, whatever that may be. Also, its to encourage others of Scottish ancestry that its 'ok' to break away every now and then and experience something much more fulfilling in wearing a little piece of (your) history.

Here is a pic that my wife took of me at the carwash:
https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2337/kiltcarwash2.jpg

This was long before I started lifting weights so I look rather skinny:
https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5184/meatthegrocerystore.jpg

Seriously though, its a great experience wearing the kilt. Heres a few reasons why:

1) I've gotten pretty much 100% positive feedback from a lot of folks that are total strangers but that approach me because of it and we start of a nice lil' conversation about it. That alone make it worth it.

2) My clan is Mac Leod of Harris if anyone is wondering. Same as Duncan Mac Leod of Highlander fame. You become twice as cool in your kilt when you mention that fact hehe...

3) Thought I am very happily married, chicks do dig it and I have been asked by a few if I "wear anything under the kilt." You won't get that kind of attention or question wearing pants!

4) Those pics are over a year old, and I've since started lifting weights. Therefore the physical intimidation factor goes through the roof and its a great deterrent for any English enemies out there that may wish to start something with me (lol).

5) The kilt keeps your, eh, 'manhood' nice and cool as you walk due to the breeze created from the sway of the kilt, and in the winter keeps certain areas of the said region from retreating into your abdomen...seriously. It is the *perfect* comfort and it agrees with your male anatomy far better than pants do.

So if you have Scots blood/ancestry I encourage you to find what clan your are aligned with and get yourself a kilt! Concerning the thread topic, I do not think that were are better off without pants, I will say from everyday experience that both pants and kilts have their own set of advantages.

[Andronikos]

why is wearing a hat when it's hot weird?
I do:embarassed:

I believe it is not, but in my country among young people yes. Baseball caps or bucket caps (I don't know if it is considered being a hat) are more common. Man wearing a hat is a rare sight in the streets.

[The Persian Cataphract]

I'll be blunt.

Trousers are useful because they are, de facto, more versatile and practical than togas (Taking several hours to properly arrange), kilts or dishdasha-robes; first of all, they protect the legs better from cold and surfaces which could cause chafing while at the same time retaining most if not all of the mobility with little hindrance, in difference to a long tunic-robe like the dishdasha.

Another useful property with direct military consequence was heat loss; only idiots wear leg armour of any kind without a cloth-backing or spolas. Same gor any limb or part of the body, really. Fact is, this philosophy was applied to wearing loose clothing on top of the armour as well for the exact same reasons providing double isolation. Eventually Graeco-Roman fashions would adopt several aspects from Partho-Sassanian styles, which can be seen in early Byzantine art and onwards.

The adoption of trousers is actually quite a rational process; Herodotus makes an admission for the Persian entrepreneurship to have discovered most of the world, either by sea (Sataspes) or by horse-back (Likely the medium of transportation used by Scylax of Caryanda). Because there was no faster means of transportation than by horse, it also comes as no surprise to read about laudatory passages of the Greeks in regards to the Achaemenid royal couriers. The royal road itself was obviously built for swift horseback transportation between Lydia, Cappadocia, Babylon, Elam and into Persis.

Trousers are worn today, because we'd look like tools in elaborate blankets which take several hours to arrange just for shits and kicks. The Kandys/Kantûsh also prevailed against the Chlamys, as our jackets and sweaters resemble the former model the most. Practical clothing catches on everywhere.

[IrishHitman]

well, arabs conquered more land than the romans, while wearing Kilts:clown:


Yeah, but looked who they conquered and how.
Easy pickings except for the Persians.

[Ibrahim]

Yeah, but looked who they conquered and how.
Easy pickings except for the Persians.

I know-I'm just jk.

in any event, I must say, practical or not, a properly worn persian pants or roman tunic, or modern dishdashas, pants, or highland kilts are all way better than this :clown:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_X_d6JjJ00I4/RthF-xNlnOI/AAAAAAAAG4I/dDVp9dSZhMQ/s400/short-pants-1.
if there is anything more impracticle, then its having your pants like you're about to use the toilet

[bobbin]

Ha! can't agree more, there was a boy in my old school who used to wear his jeans so low there was actually a gap you coulds see through between the top of his trousers and his boxers. Most unpleasent.

[abou]

I'm quite fond of the University of Edinburgh tartan. I should probably get one since renting it for every special occasion will wrack my wallet.

[Megas Methuselah]

5) The kilt keeps your, eh, 'manhood' nice and cool as you walk due to the breeze created from the sway of the kilt, and in the winter keeps certain areas of the said region from retreating into your abdomen...seriously. It is the *perfect* comfort and it agrees with your male anatomy far better than pants do.


Heh heh. I used to know this one punk back in high school who wore his kilt quite often. When I would ask him why, he'd respond, "Because I like the wind on my balls."

But I'm guessing this would be another reason, too:


3) Thought I am very happily married, chicks do dig it and I have been asked by a few if I "wear anything under the kilt." You won't get that kind of attention or question wearing pants!

[Watchman]

Conclusion - chicks dig guys who wear skirts.

[IrishHitman]

Ha! can't agree more, there was a boy in my old school who used to wear his jeans so low there was actually a gap you coulds see through between the top of his trousers and his boxers. Most unpleasent.

What?

Barbaroi Americans....

CRUCIFY AND/OR ENSLAVE SUCH PEOPLE.

[bobbin]

1) I've gotten pretty much 100% positive feedback from a lot of folks that are total strangers but that approach me because of it and we start of a nice lil' conversation about it. That alone make it worth it.
Being scottish I wouldn't get this as much as whenever you see somone wearing a kilt in scotland you just assume there's a wedding nearby (which is usually the case). There is a guy near where i live who walks around in a Great Kilt though, now that turns heads.


2) My clan is Mac Leod of Harris if anyone is wondering. Same as Duncan Mac Leod of Highlander fame. You become twice as cool in your kilt when you mention that fact hehe...
Mines is MacDonald of the Isles, I'm sure at some point down the line of history our ancestors were knocking lumps out of each other on a bog somewhere.


3) Thought I am very happily married, chicks do dig it and I have been asked by a few if I "wear anything under the kilt." You won't get that kind of attention or question wearing pants!
Even in scotland somone will invariably say this at least once, it almost a tradition!


5) The kilt keeps your, eh, 'manhood' nice and cool as you walk due to the breeze created from the sway of the kilt, and in the winter keeps certain areas of the said region from retreating into your abdomen...seriously. It is the *perfect* comfort and it agrees with your male anatomy far better than pants do.
They are surprisingly warm but when the wind gets up it can be a pain. Plus there's the whole etiquette on sitting down with out exposing yourself:clown:
ps: my clans tartan
https://chuckmccall.com/kiltsinscotland/resources/resource_102.jpg


On the OT i pretty much hold the same veiw as The Persian Cataphract in that the main reason for the adoption of trousers is practicality, there was a reason highlanders took off their kilts before battle.

[Celtic_Punk]

jeans like those foolish scene or emo kids wear are extremely bad. A good pair of semi baggy pants of a breathable material are best. I like wearing my old BDU pants on the regular because they're made of breathable material plus they give me a lovely amount of room down there.

I live in Canada, it's either shorts or pants in the summer, Pants are a must in the winter. Unless you're a damned fool

[bobbin]

What?

Barbaroi Americans....

CRUCIFY AND/OR ENSLAVE SUCH PEOPLE.

He was scottish actually but no doubt wished he was born in Compton.

[IrishHitman]

He was scottish actually but no doubt wished he was born in Compton.

Athena preserve us..
A Scot, abandoning his hardy nature to act like a soft twat?!?!?

[Atilius]

I for one have to say that Pants are overrated. Honostly, if i could, i probably wouldnt wear them. It gets so humid here in minnesota that its unbearable to wear pants. Shorts are ok, but pants, meh.Gah! What about mid-January when it's twenty below and you're outside trying to get your @!#%&@!!! car started? Don't you want to have children?


Trousers are useful because they are, de facto, more versatile and practical than togas ..., kilts or dishdasha-robes; ...
Indeed, sir.

I'd like to add a little-known fact: pants can save your life.

Should one be so unfortunate as to be accidentally precipitated out of a water craft and in to the, uh..., water, one need only slip out of one's trousers, tie the trouser legs together near their bottoms, grasp the trousers firmly by the waistband above the water and then bring them down sharply, submerging the waistband. This action forces air into the trouser legs, and by keeping the waistband submerged in front of one while placing one's head between the inflated trouser legs, and leaning back so that one's head rests on the knot tying the legs together, one has an improvised life jacket.

It actually works; I had to do it in order to get a merit badge when I was a boy scout. Regrettably, the air leaks out in about 30 seconds or so, but you just repeat the process. It's better than treading water anyway. Or drowning.

[Phalanx300]

Personally, I wear both pants and my kilt whenever it suits my fancy. Mainly, though, its to show a little bit of pride in my Scottish ancestry and, in my own way, fight a minuscule battle against the 'sheep-like' conformists putting a damper on one's own personal expression, whatever that may be. Also, its to encourage others of Scottish ancestry that its 'ok' to break away every now and then and experience something much more fulfilling in wearing a little piece of (your) history.

Here is a pic that my wife took of me at the carwash:
https://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2337/kiltcarwash2.jpg

This was long before I started lifting weights so I look rather skinny:
https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/5184/meatthegrocerystore.jpg

Seriously though, its a great experience wearing the kilt. Heres a few reasons why:

1) I've gotten pretty much 100% positive feedback from a lot of folks that are total strangers but that approach me because of it and we start of a nice lil' conversation about it. That alone make it worth it.

2) My clan is Mac Leod of Harris if anyone is wondering. Same as Duncan Mac Leod of Highlander fame. You become twice as cool in your kilt when you mention that fact hehe...

3) Thought I am very happily married, chicks do dig it and I have been asked by a few if I "wear anything under the kilt." You won't get that kind of attention or question wearing pants!

4) Those pics are over a year old, and I've since started lifting weights. Therefore the physical intimidation factor goes through the roof and its a great deterrent for any English enemies out there that may wish to start something with me (lol).

5) The kilt keeps your, eh, 'manhood' nice and cool as you walk due to the breeze created from the sway of the kilt, and in the winter keeps certain areas of the said region from retreating into your abdomen...seriously. It is the *perfect* comfort and it agrees with your male anatomy far better than pants do.

So if you have Scots blood/ancestry I encourage you to find what clan your are aligned with and get yourself a kilt! Concerning the thread topic, I do not think that were are better off without pants, I will say from everyday experience that both pants and kilts have their own set of advantages.

Supises me you aren't having Casse in your sig as well seing the Highlander spirit. :2thumbsup:


And it depends on your location I gues, many people around the mediteranian opted for.. dresses. :clown: While men in colder areas went for trousers, except the Highlanders, they were crazy(in a good way). :sweatdrop:

And if this charges at you with a dress it loses its fear appeal somewhat:clown::


http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/johnny_shumates_portfolio/images/211686/original.aspx

[WinsingtonIII]

I think pants are necessary in colder climates (at least in the winter). Talk to any woman from a generation that was forced to always wear dresses and skirts year round when in school and they will tell you all about how miserable it is to wear a dress when it is below freezing. In the summer, a little breeze would probably be very nice, but in the dead of winter, the last thing I want is any sort of breeze traveling up there. That being said, most men probably look better in a kilt than in shorts anyways, so during the summer months, it looks like pantless might be the way to go.

[bobbin]

And it depends on your location I gues, many people around the mediteranian opted for.. dresses. :clown: While men in colder areas went for trousers, except the Highlanders, they were crazy(in a good way). :sweatdrop:
IIRC they wore things similar to breeches underneath as well (so they were only slightly mad).

[Power2the1]

Mines is MacDonald of the Isles, I'm sure at some point down the line of history our ancestors were knocking lumps out of each other on a bog somewhere.


Really now?

The last Scottish Highlander battle of the clans that we know of pitted my clan Mac Leòid against your Mac Dhamhnuill clan. After a long battle that lasted most of the day I must say my clan was forced to give way to yours. You are my sworn enemy now, you dirty Mac Dhamhnuill! :whip:

[moonburn]

well considering the points from the original post one must agree that since industrialisation happened in england and one of the british isles major exports had always been textiles we can assume that pants became the "easyest" and cheap male product to wear, wich pretty much gave pants 1 to 5 generations to the rest of the other elements to become the culturally accepted dressund code

as for the scots and their great pride i had always assumed that kilts have been invented by an english in 1722 who lived in lower scotland (lowlands (?) ) and he used the clans tartans as inspiration but that until that point the kilts where actually some type of wierd wool togas and that scots whore trousers (like all other celts) underneath it.

as for the it´s great with chicks i must admit it´s true due to some personal experience of competing with some crazy friends who at a night decided to wear kilts, altough the "great" with chicks seems more conected to the fact that it increases female curiosity and it makes it easyer for them to device a ploy to check the goods instead of having to buy it to check it :beam:

[fleaza]

i think itd be easier to run in pants than in tunics. plus, tunics would rip easier because of the ease in which an object can catch it and rip it

[Ibrahim]

Ha! can't agree more, there was a boy in my old school who used to wear his jeans so low there was actually a gap you coulds see through between the top of his trousers and his boxers. Most unpleasent.

most distasteful.:no:

but I can tell you, you got lucky; when I first came to Texas, and got into Boorwood* high,anywhere between 1 in 20 to 1 in 6 males in any given class wore that style at any one time. I kinda stuck out, seeing that I prefer high-waisted pants.

*actually brazoswood. "boor" was a pajorative addition reffering to the low intelligence level of the non-AP students.

[satalexton]

clearly :clown: pants are still a barbaric thing....

[HunGeneral]

Well I would prefer pants if I had to choose - many reasosn for it.

Oh yeah and about using clothes to defend against sunburn: most of my realtives wear a wide hat made out of strah (no idea where they got thoose from) and it seems to work well. Anoither method I heard from one of my friends - while working in the fields during summer his grandfather always wore long pants, a shirt with long arms and a smal hat on his head - it might have been not so cool as one would wish but he was always the one who never had any sunburn while harvest time (that means working in the scroching sun of summer from 3 o clock in the morning to 11 before lunch and then the whole afternoon).

One more interresting thing I found: I have finished reading a book a few days ago from Harold Lamb entitled "ALEXANDER OF MACEDON The journey to worlds end" (original title). In it there is a description of the Persians making fun of the Macedonians before the battle of granicus by shouting things at them like "Who payed you for coming here?!" and "Are you woman or what the hell that your wearing skirts?!" (after the battle however the Persians didn't laugh....)

I think this was however a modern idea or do you think in thoose days they really used such insults?

[bobbin]

Really now?

The last Scottish Highlander battle of the clans that we know of pitted my clan Mac Leòid against your Mac Dhamhnuill clan. After a long battle that lasted most of the day I must say my clan was forced to give way to yours. You are my sworn enemy now, you dirty Mac Dhamhnuill! :whip:

Have at ye!!:knight: seems our ancestors made up shortly afterwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coire_Na_Creiche) so no harm done:2thumbsup:
ps it was only the last battle on skye, there was still a whole century of fighting left for the highlanders.


@moonburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

[Cambyses]

Well, I have two points to add to this debate.

1. Is it a coincidence that women (in western society) have started to wear trousers in much much greater numbers in the last 50 years, at the same time that they have become truly emancipated? And that indeed in many conservative circles wearing trousers is very much frowned upon.
2. Those flimsy Hellenic tunics acquired a certain - err - reputation. Whether or not that was justified Ive no idea. The arrival of the monotheistic religions and a less permissive society, surely also encouraged more conservative clothing, of which trousers (I cant say pants, being English that word means something else to me) were far more pratical than the other "covering-up" item, the toga...

[lobf]

Go walk through a field or forest in a dress and then tell me how much pants suck.

[miotas]

Go walk through a field or forest in a dress and then tell me how much pants suck.
Do it often do you? :grin2:

I have changed my opinion on matter, pants have been outlawed in this (http://www.nationstates.net/ballina_island) country, and there hasn't been a single complaint from the populace. Clearly pants are unnecessary.

[Cadwalader]

Sure trousers may be less practical than tunicae, but should we also quit EB forever and begin playing with pine-cones? Trousers are the height of civilization! Whenever I put mine on, I think about the proud tradition of pushing through the wilderness, driving the savages in front of them like a farmer's shovel does with dung. Care must be taken in this age of globalisation, for once man has dorned the trouser, there will be nothing to stop him.