I’m so ashamed of seeing a 12 year old thread resurrected for no reason that I reported it for closure.
for SCIENCE!
New theory that just popped in my head: tool use. Humans develop tools, which allow them to gather food more efficiently and amass more materials and resources. Humans realize they don’t have an easy way to transport their tools and resources, but gradually figure out that they can wrap a vine or some other material around their shoulder/waist to help carry things.
Caveman A is immediately jealous of Caveman B’s new sporty animal hide belt, which he uses to carry tools which basically display his wealth, ability to provide, and ability to defend his resources. Caveman A makes himself an even better belt.
And so on and so forth until Lady Gaga.
There’s a very cool channel on youtube called VSauce that explores these sorts of odd questions. He just did a video on this very question about a week or two ago. Unfortunately, I can’t provide a link since I’m at work, but it’s worth a watch.
So what is the purpose of human body hair? It is too sparse to offer insulation, it doesn’t block the sun, and it doesn’t grow long (except on the head). It seems to be of limited utility.
I also recall reading that the aboriginal inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego (the southernmost island of S. America wore no clothes. Charles Darwin recorded that the Yaghans wore no clothes, even in that subarctic climate-was this possible?
Quite possibly it’s just an evolutionary leftover. Or an example of sexual selection, given that it varies a lot both between the genders and between populations; perhaps the women of some tribe that left a lot of descendents just thought hairy men were hot.
Notice post 12? Where today there’d be a Wikipedia cite, it’s an Encarta cite. Anyone else remember Encarta? This is an old thread!
Actually I had to look up what it was…on Wikipedia. 
Now that’s funny!
While apparently in jest, I think this touches on the most likely answer. Clothes of various sorts may have been independently invented multiple times. But I’ll bet they didn’t catch on until people who were good at making them started trading clothes for products the tailors weren’t so good at creating (perhaps food).
Perhaps in some cultures, like on the American frontier, families made their own clothing rather than buying from neighbors or stores. But they still bought needles. A clothed society requires sale or barter of good and services. And a society complex enough to have even rudimentary marketing will convince most people that clothes are desirable.
I am glad to live in a society where clothing is for sale.
(Answered without looking at the rest of the thread).
Humans wear clothes partly because we’re the only species that has modesty, we’re the only species that makes clothes, and because we’re generally not well-equipped to live in many climates without clothes.
Uh, hair does provide some relief from the sun and some insulation from cold. Try shaving your head when it’s cold out. You’ll notice a big difference.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that humans are the only animals who wear clothes because we’re the only animals who can make clothes. It is our ability to make clothes that allows us to live outside of the tropical regions of the world where we evolved, not vice versa. That still doesn’t answer the question entirely, though, because many or most tropical cultures still wear some kind of clothing, at least a loincloth. There does seem to be a modesty drive inherent to humans.
Depending on how one defines “clothes”, we aren’t the only species to use them.
In particular, many species of crustacians and insects make or find “clothes” for themselves.
To give examples, the Hermit Crab uses discarded shells as armour:
The Decorator Crab “clothes” itself with seaweed for camoflauge and even stinging anemonies for protection:
The Caddis Fly Larvae makes a sheath for its body out of twigs and stuff they find. An artist has them making jewelry by giving them gold and jems to work with! 
So humans are not the only species to make or find “clothing”.
What about the strange garments called “swimsuits”? A lot of women’s swimsuits are just a few strings and patches of material-more trouble than worth it.
And they sell for big $$.
I’ve just looked at a naked 12-year-old zombie. I feel dirty.
itt: posting on the internet about clothing being unnatural
Nonsense, really it is. Humans are not born with the desire to wear clothes, children are TOLD and TAUGHT to wear clothes.
Oh and other apes will APE humans and wear clothes, apply lip stick etc; just like young humans APE older humans. It is no secret that young children will rip their clothes off at any moment; because they do not want to wear them.
>>>>>>Why do we feel so strongly about nudity to the point where we feel it is a criminal offence?
This is a fallacious question, it is called assuming facts not in evidence, no different than asking “do you still beat your wife”
Nudist colonies refute your loaded question fallacy, another poster has already refuted this nonsense and you acknowledged his rebuttal.
Repeating a refuted claim is intellectually dishonest. I live in Ontario Canada; women can go topless anywhere that men can. Strip joints with full nudity refute your claim regarding nudity. The mindset against nudity you speak of is from the Abrahamic Religions; it is culture not biology.
>>>this would shock and outrage all who saw me and I would eventually be arrested and branded a “sex offender”.
How would this make you a sex offender, a public nuisance maybe but not a sex offender. As well your geographical location will depend on the legality of walking around nude. This shows it is nothing to do with biology but simply culture.
>>>>The strength of feeling we have about nudity is out of all proportion to the actual act itself, which is completely harmless (in physical terms).
You are taking too much liberty with the term WE. You are espousing your views and the views of those who think as you do; that does not equal WE.
>>>>The reason we feel so strongly about nudity is because there is something deep, deep within us that makes us feel this way.
This is false and assumption with no evidence what so ever but you deny and toss out all of the evidence that refutes your claim.
Simply repeating the same false claims does not make them become truth.
Children disprove your claim
Apes other than humans that will dress up disprove your claim
Populations of humans that did not wear clothes disprove your claim.
There is no purpose for anything, to suggest purpose would suggest design. There is no evidence for design, there is no evidence animals evolve at a biological level to their environment.
Natural Selection has no purpose, mutations have no purpose. Those not selected for death or species extinction did so by the luck of the draw due to a mutation present or not present.
example: If humans had a tail it would be an advantage for us; a third hand you might say. We have a tail bone and some humans are born with a tiny tail of no use. If people with tails were the most desired to be breed with, eventually we would have more people with tails. No purpose, just something that attracts mates. We could of course use that tail for a purpose we determine.
Same with giraffes; the old theory was they evolved a neck for the environment, Darwin refuted the older theory and we learn those with the longer necks had an advantage thus get to breed more. The neck did not evolve with a purpose; the long neck simply became an advantage.
What is deep within us is societal conditioning, not God at work. And no, people aren’t completely rational, if at all, but that’s why most religion is false.
The only things in humans on a mental level that survive generations are certain fears. Fear of heights, fear of certain animals, etc, and that’s only because there is such an overwhelming survival advantage to those fears. Anything less important probably won’t be genetic.
The animals did wear clothing, before Urban outfitters relocated, then they reverted to running around in their fur