Are we better off without pants?

**Caveira** · 08-07-2009, 21:00

Banquet for thought

My take on it: you're a travestti!

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

**A Very Super Market** · 08-07-2009, 22:00

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

**Fluvius Camillus** · 08-07-2009, 22:08

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** · 08-07-2009, 22:13

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

**Watchman** · 08-07-2009, 22:15

And less frostbites on your wossnames during cold winters.

Also, pants have pockets. /discussion

**DaciaJC** · 08-07-2009, 22:17

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.

**Andy1984** · 08-07-2009, 22:31

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

**Moros** · 08-07-2009, 22:39

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.

**antisocialmunky** · 08-07-2009, 22:38

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.

**Watchman** · 08-07-2009, 22:45

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 ?

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 ?