In the western world, at least, we all wear essentially the same thing. The appearance differs but we wear the same standard components:
Undergarment(s),
Outer shirt (blouse),
Outer pants (skirt),
Outer coat (possibly).
Socks,
Shoes.
Well, shoes and an outer coat can be considered to be protection from the elements, but who decided that the other components were necessary?
Why do mothers teach their children that all of these things are necessary?
Do non-western societies have a similar set of components that they are taught to wear?
Bob
Most human clothing exists to show off status- how much money you can waste on clothing.
When I lived in Cameroon, fabric came in 6 yard lengths. Now 6 yards is enough to make several outfits. But everyone would use the whole six yards to create a single outfit- with a wrap skirt underneath just peeking out, a hairwrap, and an additional piece of fabric wrapped around the waist or draped over the head. This is all way more clothing than anyone needs in 120 degree heat. But that’s how things were, because if your outfit used less than your six yards you would look poor, and nobody wants that no matter how poor they really are.
- Fashion has no particular logic behind it
- Modesty has no particular logic behind it either
- Opal does
So while there are laundering issues and some general issues with what parts of the body you can easily hang cloth from or secure something firmly about, there’s no real “there there” to answer your question.
You’d have to study the entire history of clothing in Europe for the last 4000 years to understand it. Basically it evolved, and it’s this way just because it is.
You describe basically two layers:the outer one that functions as:
- protection from the elements
- blocks or camoflauges from unpleasant comparison with other people
- hides the sex organs, since we associate their display with sexual activity.
And the inner layer, which protect the outer layer from sweat stains, skid marks, and provieds a air layer for heat retention.
Here in the US South, business men wear polo (actualy golf) shirts year round, since its warm enough, while Honolulu bank managers wear Aloha shirts. Further out in the Pacific, people conduct modern business operations wearing nothing above the waist at all.
One hundred yeaas ago, all of them would be required to wear ties and jackets, but the suit that developed side by side with mercantilism in the 17th century has been sacrificed to the greater spread of mercantilism.
It all starts from the elements and then within the last few thousand years it’s become a mainstay in order to treat those other 2 conditions that Slithy mentioned. Right on.
By the way, I’m new and and I’ll be on the boards a fair amount when I can get away from my job. I do product marketing, which, while interesting, can get broing sometimes so i’ll take a break on here.
The funny thing about the “western standard” pants/shirt combination is that while it’s well-suited to Northern Europe - ie., warm, it doesn’t work very well in hot places. In fact, it’s about the worst possible mode of dress for hot places - close-fitting clothes, as pants and shirts are bound to be, retain lots and lots of body heat and stick to all the bits that get sweaty.
Arabic men have it way better - Omani men, for example, commonly wear a dishdasha ( http://www.kiltmen.com/thobe.JPG ), which is essentially a long nightshirt in white or a very light color. I’ve had the pleasure of wearing one once, and in 120-degree heat, they’re about a million times more comfortable than the most effective Nike sweat-wicking golf shirt or boardshorts or just about anything.
Similarly (and this is common to most Asian cultures), the western closed shoe is replaced by thong-style sandals. In hot places, your feet don’t need to be protected from snow, ice, water or whatever, so breathable footwear makes heaps of sense.
