Are we better off without pants?

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?)

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

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

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:

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

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

And less frostbites on your wossnames during cold winters.

Also, pants have pockets. /discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frontline1944

+ 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frontline1944

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:

Quote:

---

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! ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

... 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 ?

Quote:

---

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 ?

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).

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

(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.

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

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

Denim is old.

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

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:

Well, fine.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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).

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:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vasiliyi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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...

Quote:

---

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).