Actually, they had many more statues with erect genitalia. Even only an erect penis, maybe with a head, but without the rest of the body – these were common at the entrance to every house (Herms).
We just don’t hear much about them, because most of them didn’t survive the Christian era archeologists.
IIRC Roman women would either simply be buying cloth to make into dresses themselves. Wealthy Roman women would’ve had the cloth merchants come to their home and either had their slaves make the dress or had outside seemstresses visit their home.
I suspect there is no simple answer, most likely in some respects they were more comfortable and in others less. Culture and social values are funny things that often don’t make sense from an objective viewpoint.
Here is one example I recall reading about and I know someone is going to want a cite that I will have to find 
Supposedly during the ancient olympic games nudity among competitors was the norm, and rich or powerful women were in the audience and this was ok. But a giant scandal was made out of circumcised men, nude guys were ok but showing the glans of the penis was scandalously indecent. To the point they had weighted jewelry they had to wear if they wanted to compete.
I think that illustrates how it would be hard to understand an ancient culture without in depth reading.
Considering how many yards of cloth went into a toga, I have trouble imagining it as a market square sale item. IIRC it was the dress of the well-off upper class, and as such would probably be custom made (like most clothes - there was no S, M, L, XL, XXL in those days). Likely a cloth merchant with that level of stock had a store and warehouse set up. Either one visited there. or the merchant visited; and whatever was agreed on, the seamstress would get to work on it.
I’m familiar with the stories.
Art is an interpretation of events. The point isn’t what historically happened. If you want to know what a culture thought, you have to look at how they choose to depict events in their art.
Nudity is a fact of life - all people are naked under their clothes. But look at how nudity is depicted in Genesis:
Now look at the very first mention of nudity. Adam and Eve were naked - but they felt no shame. There’s no mention that Adam and Eve had ten fingers - and felt no shame. Or they had hair on their heads - and felt no shame. Or that their faces were exposed - and they felt no shame.
The point is that it’s presented as a given that shame is the natural response to nudity and Adam and Eve’s lack of shame over their nudity is unusual and worth commenting on.
And this lack of shame is short-lived. Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge and they become aware that their nudity is shameful. Again, it wasn’t that nudity became shameful as a consequence of their act. It’s a given that nudity always had been shameful but Adam and Eve had just been unaware of this. (God apparently knew nudity was shameful all along. When Adam said he was ashamed of being naked, God didn’t ask Adam why he thought that. God asked Adam how he had found this out.)
It seems to me that the Jews originated, and Christianity has carried along a specific concept - God’s law is fair, just law; mankind is weak and offends against that law, and there is a devil always present and waiting to help tempt us into transgression. (Unlike, say, the graeco-Roman mythos, where it seems Gods were as weak and capricious as men, and offenses were are trivial and arbitrary as the feuds between men.
Once religion became more obsessed with good and evil, it was no great stretch that a puritanical attitude would arise from time to time - we are suffering because we have sinned; enjoying pleasure now is self-indulgent, it pulls us away from or true task of worship; self-indulgent pleasures as distractions are the devil’s temptations, we prove our strength by denying ourselves these devilish distractions, etc. Sex, of couse, is a pleasure greater than many and so a temptation and evil greater than many.
Note that truly puritanical societies ban not just sex, or displays of genitalia (or breasts) but work their way up in degrees in different time and circumstances by banning view of legs, ankles, stomachs, faces, hair - not to mention any depictions or discussion…
Yes, togas were not everyday wear, even for wealthy Romans. They were huge beasts, unwieldy and difficult to wear. I don’t know if they were even custom-made, since they were fundamentally a huge half-circle of cloth which had to be draped and knotted in specific ways to allow the wearer to even walk. Making different sizes wouldn’t have improved things much. Ordinary Romans would not have had a toga, and even among the well-to-do, it wasn’t something you wore without a specific reason. A well-decorated tunic and cloak would get the I’m Rich And You’re Not message across just as effectively, and be much more comfortable for the wearer. There were, in fact, laws about who could wear certain forms of decoration. “Purple” (the actual color is more of a deep scarlet), for instance, was restricted to the ruling classes, and only the emperor could wear an entire garment dyed purple.
The tunics and gowns that ordinary Romans wore were generally made at home, by one of the women of the household. They might buy the cloth, or they might weave it themselves.
There was a system of colored stripes that were died on the togas to indicate social rank and political office.
But my point was that depicting these figures nude is historically accurate (assuming the artist was a believer), not an interpretation. How Adam and Eve are dressed or not dressed indicates what “chapter” of the story is being depicted. In depictions of them before the Apple Incident, it would be accurate to portray them fully nude. If the artist hides their “naughty bits” via careful poses or strategically-placed foliage/terrain, then that could be interpreted as a concession to the standards of the artist’s time/culture.
I think we might be talking past each other here, though, and I may not be grasping exactly what you mean. My point here boils down to this: Marge Simpson painting Mr. Burns nude was “interpretation”, because Mr. Burns wasn’t in the habit of going around nude. An artist painting Adam & Even nude is “journalism”, in that for the majority of their story, they’re naked. The fig leaves are mentioned briefly, and then God clothes them in animal skins, and they’re not mentioned much after that as the story moves on to other characters.
I didn’t know that wealthy Romans employed naked female slave (to do the housework).
It must have lead to some interesting domestic situations.
“Oh, I dropped my stylus, would you be so good as to bend over and pick it up? thanks.”
Ralph, it is difficult to be sure, but from what I know public nudity is a bigger taboo in our present culture than it was in most previous cultures. My guess is that generally in the past public nudity was a prohibition similar to the current prohibition regarding men baring their chests in public in our culture.
Whatever may the case in regard to what I wrote above it seems pretty certain that our culture is relatively quickly heading toward a situation where complete nudity in public will be as acceptable, as it currently is regarding men baring their chest in public and at that time women will be more likely to go naked in public in places such as the beach than men will.
Tom,
If it was Bond, few would object to tasteful nudity.
Oh, that classical world. Nevermind.
No. You have to present some evidence that supports your position. But first explain what “general nudity taboo” is supposed to mean.