Why do important men wear dresses?...

[WHAT]

you know, like judges and college dons, and priests?

Where did dresses come from? and if they were first devised by women (my guess because of conservation of material and easier to pee) then...did everyone wear them to begin with?...and, if so, what did the shift to pants signify? Why are mid-east men on western television wearing pants, now?...does it maybe mean they are less powerful and more manly? visa-versa?

What do the scots have to do with it?

I really want to know...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. A brief history of pants...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers

[ahem]

2. Utilikilts for everyone!

I think everyone looks better in kilts anyway. Pants are overrated.

http://www.utilikilts.com/

[tomreedtoon]

3. Ahem, you haven't seen MY legs.

Not even shaving and two pairs of honey-colored pantyhose would help. I doubt that even a coat of exterior latex would work. The only thing that looks worse than my legs is my face, and I have to put it to you, Ahem...how much torture do you want me to visit upon innocent passers-by? I'm just this close to the line of being declared a WMD.

[ahem]

7. I don't believe a word of it.

I subscribe to the "everybody's beautiful" school of thought.

You did give me a giggle, though. :hi:

[tomreedtoon]

14. Cute, but thought is trumped by Reality.

You'll have to take my word for it, since posting my picture is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Commission's long-standing rules about transport of toxic waste.

However, accepting the fact that you're hideous - and using that knowledge to good effect, like scaring the rich little brats of Republicans - is a tremendous comfort.

[khashka]

9. That's why god invented ankle length skirts.

There are even ankle length kilts, although rarely worn anymore and only ceremonially and requiring more edged weapons than even I feel comfortable with....

Khash.

[tomreedtoon]

15. Not even ankle length skirts. Burkahs.

And lead-lined burkahs at that. However, the point of wearing a burkah is that you can carry a LOT of edged and automatic weapons under them. True, they're hard to whip out quickly - since that would involve having to show what's UNDER the burkah, and were I in that outfit, that would bring a hail of fearful pre-emptive gunfire. Not to mention blowtorch attacks.

Still, it is something to consider. Do they make burkahs with built-in Velcro gunports? The more this concept goes on, it sounds like you guys want me to dress like one of Doctor Who's Daleks. Walking around blind in a lead-lined, radiation-proof burkah, swinging a sword held through a sealed port and yelling "ExterMEEnate! ExterMEEnate!"

[Xithras]

4. A brief summation.

In the beginning, everyone wore robes because they were easy to make. Pants were later invented by horsemen because we quickly discovered that having our balls rub a sweaty running horse isn't quite as erotic as it sounds. Their use later expanded to encompass the working classes where long draping clothing could be an inconvenience or dangerous.

Eventually, pants became a lot like tans. Pants and tans were fashionable among fighters and plebes, but those "above" that sort of thing considered their dresses and pale skin a sign of superiority.

As the aristocracy died out, so did the practice of wearing robes. It only lives on as tradition in a few rare and old professions (like judges), and for certain functions (like graduations).

Since women traditionally weren't allowed to work or fight, the practice of wearing dresses never faded. For much of history, the sight of a woman wearing pants meant that her husband was a poor provider and was a great insult to the family. A wife in a dress was a symbol that the man was a good enough provider that his wife could remain in the home "like an aristocrat".

The clothes don't mean much today, but those were their origins.

[barb162]

10. having our balls rub a sweaty running horse

so that's it. I was about to grab a book called the "History of costume" and look it up but yours seems like a pretty good explanation and it's also funny

[WHAT]

11. so, do pants mean mobile, and...

dresses mean sedentary? as in being able to ride a horse comfortably (if you're a man)? for a woman, I don't think it would matter?. So, did the idea of male comfort circumvent the feminine practical prerogatives? Does subverting a sexual schism indicate weakness or strength? or does practicality make it all moot?

I'm teasing but I'm serious, too, because a lopsided view can be balanced by an extreme position (or, opposing views can harmonize). It seems in one case, opposition must annihilate each other's momentum, and, in the other, enhance each the other's expanding comprehension?. I'm saying this outside the playbooks of propaganda because it is serious in comprehending dynamics shaping family...human family.

Hey, I like kilts and legs are sexy and can take you places...

[barb162]

13. Well, I think pants mean mobililty and freedom

if they aren't tight. Sometimes I look at women or girls with such tight pants I can't figure out how they are breathing or not splitting the seams. I also can't figure out the baggy pants bit that teenagers wear where the crotch of the pants is below the knee and the pants waist is barely above the bottom of the hips.

I went from being stylish for a great portion of my life to comfort. Comfort means loose, non-constricting, etc. I think Asian societies had the same dress for men and women more than western societies, once western society got away from robes.

I think that clothes were unconsciously used to control women, especially when you couldn't move well in them as compared to men. I am thinking high heels with straight skirts, 18th century court dress, Chinese binding of women's feet, BURQAS, etc. I am glad the casual thing came in a few years ago in the US as that allowed mobility and comfort for both sexes. When I see the M. Blahnik pointy toe and heels shoes for women that havebeen so popular the last few yars, it makes me wonder why anyone would go back to that. I think the requirements for full covering of women in most Mideast countries is a definite means of controlling their movement and freedom.

[tjdee]

5. Because it's hot, that's why.....oh, and yeah, everyone wore them to start

Mideast men wear pants now because Euros made it all the rage--when they were colonizing and such.

Men in skirt = sexy. Unless it's like, a tight miniskirt. :scared:

[Floogeldy]

6. Those are not dresses.

They are robes.

:eyes:

[Igel]

8. Ritual preserves older dressing styles.

Cossacks and kilts, tunics and robes.

Pants are harder to make. And usually weren't in style. Indo-Iranians like pants; but they rode on horse-back while those pantywaist Spartans and Romans rode in chariots. I'm quite sure I don't want to see a Scotsman in a kilt riding on horseback.

The Celtic warrior, in one version, would go to battle in just his torc. No less protection than a kilt, but much less hassle.

Manliness is read into the clothing. But, in any event, a toga or a tunic is not quite the same as a dress.

[AussieDave]

12. If you knew what men wear under kilts

you wouldn't be asking the question.

[Kire]

16. what's wrong with men wearing dresses?

I bet someone in this forum has something to say about it.