A person is legally clothed if there are two layers of cloth over the naughty bits.
But not clothing. You can’t remove paint and put the same paint back on. I’m not saying that’s an important difference though. Other things can have the same function as clothing.
If shoes count as clothing, that “Totally Nude Girls” joint down by the airport has been ripping men off for years.
You can put the same pattern, though.
Good point. I hadn’t considered that. But a sign-board or a barrel would be clothing, albeit very uncomfortable, in my view.
Not mine.
Well $20 for a beer? Yeah I think so!
Interesting. I think of the mobile phone case dress as clothing moreso than the fursuit, maybe because the latter isn’t conforming to the shape of the body at all? 
I’d think of most costumes as clothing, but something like an inflatable sumo wrestler suit, no.
There are human groups who go nearly naked in conditions which have lots of possiblities for abrasions and pokes; and again humans always or nearly always wear something even when living in places and conditions in which climate isn’t an issue.
I wonder whether it was containment of menstrual fluid: meaning among other things that one didn’t leave a blood trail. We were prey animals through most of our history, after all.
That might explain the strong connection with wearing something over the genitals. And, if it lead to general concealment of sex organs leading to at least some part of our weirdness about sex, it might lend a whole additional meaning to an old name for “the curse”.
Routinely in all public circumstances, nothing other than a belt?!
All clothes.
Agreeing with puzzlegal. At least, unless somebody with nothing else to hand tied one around themselves to conceal their genitals (or whatever their society conceals.) In that case, it would become clothing for as long as it was in that use.
Why two?
A swimsuit might only have one; even in areas where keeping the suit on is legally required.
Shoes are still clothing. The customers understand what “totally nude” means in that context.
In the other direction, sleeves don’t stop being clothing because nobody in this society says that someone wearing a sleeveless shirt and pants is going naked.
@thorny_locust and @puzzlegal, what is your differentiation between a clothing accessory and clothing? Not arguing; curious.
To me a scarf is an item of clothing. Yes a handbag. My pork pie hat. My tie. They are not as independent items an outfit but they are part and parcel of a clothing outfit.
Certainly. And paint can also be protection. I don’t see the imprecise distinction of ‘clothing’ to be that important compared to the specific function.
I’m not who you were asking but I think “clothing” has to involve either protection or covering. It doesn’t have to be the only purpose or even the main purpose but it has to serve on of those functions. And that means hats and scarves and gloves and possibly shoes depends on the exact style - is it a knit cap to keep warm or a hat with a brim to shade my eyes? Then it’s clothing. Is it more of a fascinator style? Then it’s not clothing. A purse is no more clothing than my reusable grocery bag is. Especially since it’s sometimes impossible to tell the difference between a canvas tote sold as a grocery /lunch bag and one sold as a handbag.
So if I’m not wearing underwear under my T shirt and shorts, I’m not “clothed” ?
I’m not sure. I’d consider the scarf, the hat, and the tie to all be clothing items. Maybe because a handbag often has to be actively hung on to, while all the others, once you’ve got them on, stay on until you actively take them off? But that would seem to imply that a handbag worn on a crossbody strap would become part of clothing, and it doesn’t for me. The handbag just seems to me to be essentially separated from the body in a way that the others, while being worn, aren’t.
Agreeing; but noting that any given item of clothing is very often serving more than one function simultaneously.
I was listening to a podcast about the origins of clothing, the expert suggested starting with the definition of clothing.
His definition was “Clothing refers to items worn to cover the body.”
Thus:
- The item is worn
- The item has a purpose
- The purpose is to cover the body
Is a hat clothing? It’s an item worn to cover the head. Clothing
Purse? It’s an item carried to hold things. Not Clothing
Body Paint? It’s not really an “item”. Not Clothing
The argument then becomes tautological: if we define clothing as an item with the function of cover then something whose function is primarily not to cover but to signify is not clothing. It is perhaps “dress”, even if it be also covers some portion of the body, and even if it originated from an item that had a primary function of body coverage.
I find it an unsatisfactory definition and argument.
Another question: we obviously cannot know exactly at what point ancient humans used clothing as a means of social signaling as well as protection (despite my WAG it was concurrent since body paint signaling was likely already in use), but among current HG populations is there any social signaling use (dress) use of clothing?
I don’t think the definition requires covering be the primary or only purpose, just that the purpose is served by the item.
Take something like a police uniform. Filled with signaling. Many of the pieces are still clothing despite the entire design focused on signaling that the individual is a police officer. Shirt, pants, socks, shoes, hat, jacket, all clothing. In addition to signaling, they serve the purpose of covering the body.
Badge, duty belt, radio, holster, not clothing.
There’s a scene in the motion picture version of In the Name of the Rose where a bunch of medieval monks argue about whether Christ owned his own robes. I couldn’t help but think of that scene when I read through a few of these posts. But what was this board created for if not answering the question how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
Clothing is made from textiles, animals, and I suppose some synthetic material that is typically fairly flexible in nature. A gold necklace is not clothing. A tiara is not clothing. A headband made from leather is clothing.
Is a necklace made from leather clothing?
Again, I don’t think we’re going to get a precise answer; though it’s fun discussing the factors involved in trying to get one.
Son of a %#%#! You got me! It’s like a tomato. Technically it’s fruit but in our hearts it’s a vegetable.
This. And it’s probably made of something like cloth, although there are edge cases. But i don’t think a handbag is even an edge case. It’s just a bag, not an article of clothing.
The head band is an edge case to me. The necklaces are all jewelry, not clothing. A leather belt that holds your pants up is an edge case. A suit of armor is an edge case.
I honestly can’t imagine a definition of “clothing” that includes handbags, though. What else is included? Earrings? Finger nail polish? A gun worn in a holster?