Are we better off without pants?

**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

**A Very Super Market** · 08-07-2009, 22:43

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?

**HunGeneral** · 08-07-2009, 22:58

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** · 08-07-2009, 23:07

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

**Whatever Scortamareva** · 08-07-2009, 23:19

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

**bobbin** · 08-07-2009, 23:38

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** · 08-09-2009, 04:43

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

**Watchman** · 08-09-2009, 04:55

Denim is old.

**Cimon** · 08-07-2009, 23:37

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.