# Why was everyone in the past so well-dressed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 22, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819 "2019-11-22T15:57:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/61 "2019-11-26T07:51:39Z")
> [@MarvinKitFox](#): > > and > 3) Cellphones. > No seriously, listen to me. > Why do you feel safe to go out today wearing clothing that is disrespectful to those around you? Why do they not just kick the shit out of you? > Because you have an instant means to summon help, including police help. > The ease and speed of access to outside help has made our culture immensely safer, so there is _much_ less incentive to conform with the public image, because you don’t have to conform to survive any more. Hate to break it to you, but informal clothing came in long before cellphones. And, **RioRico** , I grew up in the '50s and our showers worked just fine. In New York we didn’t even have water meters, so we could take longer showers than today. And we even had indoor plumbing. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/62 "2019-11-26T20:53:15Z")
> [@actualliberalnotoneofthose](#): > > I’m thankful for the yoga pants, daily showers, and indoor plumbing. After reading the Hornblower books I gained a new appreciation for refrigeration.:eek: ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/63 "2019-11-26T21:02:39Z")
Reading reprints of _Lil’ Abner_ I can’t help noticing that he wears a shirt and suspenders. Of course he was supposed to be the very definition of a hick. Still you’ve got to wonder how prevalent the type of clothing you see in that video were. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Brother\_1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_brother_1/32/3513_2.png) [@Little\_Brother\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Brother_1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/64 "2019-11-26T22:01:30Z")
I confess a deep-seated personal preference for bedtime nudity, which doubtless influences my attitude. It seems obvious enough that sleepwear is mandated by both physical circumstances and cultural norms; where dwellings are drafty and chilly, and modesty is valued, it’s “natural” enough to wear clothes to bed; I understand why sleeping caps were popular, even indispensable. I also recognize that the latter consideration explains the abundance of sleepwear in the classic Hollywood movies and TV I grew up with (b. 1955). But even as a kid, it freaked me out that people put on so many clothes at bedtime. For some reason, sleepwear outerwear-- “bathrobes”-- seems like overkill. I appreciate that such garments come into existence for practical reasons, but I’m thinking of etiquette that seems _far_ too prudish and elaborate. It just seems annoyingly absurd that people clad in full pajamas or sumptuous nightgowns would feel compelled to add a bathrobe to pick up a newspaper from the front doorstep in order to remain within the bounds of civilized decency. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/65 "2019-11-26T23:21:38Z")
> [@MarvinKitFox](#): > > 1. Cellphones. > No seriously, listen to me. > Why do you feel safe to go out today wearing clothing that is disrespectful to those around you? Why do they not just kick the shit out of you? > Because you have an instant means to summon help, including police help. > The ease and speed of access to outside help has made our culture immensely safer, so there is _much_ less incentive to conform with the public image, because you don’t have to conform to survive any more. I didn’t realize all those people in the counter-culture/hippie/punk/non-conformist groups of the 1960s, 1970s, & 1980s all had cellphones. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/66 "2019-11-27T00:18:14Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > The past truly is a different world. Or take your choice of different pasts and worlds, still normal in places. But for most, it was worse then than now. I wonder how informal dress correlates with improved plumbing and sanitation. I expect them to correlate positively but I’m not sure there is a causal link between the two. Perhaps, as societies get richer and move towards most people thinking of themselves as middle class, there is less emphasis on dress as a social class marker? If you have any guesses, I’d like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/67 "2019-11-27T00:24:51Z")
As my avatar suggests, I’m a fan of the Victorian era, and especially how people dressed. I think the proliferation of more formal attire was, first, a reflection of a far more formal culture, with a much more stratified society. Manner of dress had significance as a reflection on your station in life, so people would want to dress as best as they could, so as to be treated as well as possible. It is also true that people generally owned fewer clothes, emphasizing repairs (I’d venture that far fewer people can sew these days) over replacement. If you are only going to have a few choice items, it would make sense to ensure that you have clothes that can be used in formal occasions, since that is more likely to cover all circumstances a person might find themselves. ---
**Author:** ![carnut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnut/32/3531_2.png) [@carnut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnut)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/68 "2019-11-27T04:49:13Z")
Keep in mind that 100 years ago, people didn’t have as many clothes, not to mention fabrics and style choices. Most clothes were made of sturdy cotton for summer, wool for winter. I do note that the the delivery men, paper sellers, and delivery drivers are in shirt sleeves and sometimes a vest, not an actual suit jacket or coat. One shot had a Chinese child in what we would call a Mao jacket today. But businessmen were expected to wear suits, women skirts and blouses (women in pants? Not yet!). Keep in mind that we don’t see any of this stuff closely so we can’t see how worn out some of these clothes are. The poor might only have one outfit. Most folks had two or three. Only the rich had evening wear. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/69 "2019-11-27T08:52:43Z")
My parents are in their early 90s. Neither has ever owned a pair of jeans, my Mum only started wearing trousers in her 70s and if we go out, even just to the pub or the supermarket, my Dad will wear a jacket and tie. And he won’t take his jacket off in mixed company as it’s ‘impolite’. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/70 "2019-11-27T12:40:14Z")
That reminds me of the ff. essay from Joseph Epstein: [“The Perpetual Adolescent”](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-perpetual-adolescent) > [@](#): > > Dressing down may first have set in on the West Coast, where a certain informality was thought to be a new way of life. In the 1960s, in universities casual dress became absolutely de rigueur among younger faculty, who, in their ardor to destroy any evidence of their being implicated in evil hierarchy, wished not merely to seem in no wise different from their students but, more important, to seem always young; and the quickest path to youthfulness was teaching in jeans, T-shirts, and the rest of it. ---
**Author:** ![yendis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ed8c4c/32.png) [@yendis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yendis)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/71 "2019-11-27T13:35:00Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > “Devolve” is a pretty good description of where we are now. In the last 10-15 years, large portions of society have blown right through “casual and comfortable” into “sloppy.” > > I’m not old, but I can remember a time when wearing jeans with rips or holes meant that you were extremely poor – so poor that you couldn’t even afford second-hand clothes. Or of course having deliberately slashed clothes meant you were staggeringly wealthy. [http://www.afashionhistory.com/quick-stories/ripped-jeans-are-for-kings-the-story-behind-slashing-clothes/](http://www.afashionhistory.com/quick-stories/ripped-jeans-are-for-kings-the-story-behind-slashing-clothes/) ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/72 "2019-11-27T13:48:48Z")
> [@Little\_Brother\_1](#): > > But even as a kid, it freaked me out that people put on so many clothes at bedtime. For some reason, sleepwear outerwear-- “bathrobes”-- seems like overkill. I appreciate that such garments come into existence for practical reasons, but I’m thinking of etiquette that seems _far_ too prudish and elaborate. It just seems annoyingly absurd that people clad in full pajamas or sumptuous nightgowns would feel compelled to add a bathrobe to pick up a newspaper from the front doorstep in order to remain within the bounds of civilized decency. It is a robe, not a bathrobe, and the main reason to use it is not decency but a lack of heating. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/73 "2019-11-27T15:07:01Z")
When I began working as a mail clerk in a government department, I wore a jacket and tie every day. When I retired a couple of years ago as a senior finance officer, I wore a short-sleeved dress shirt and my good jeans most days, with a tie and dress pants only if I was scheduled to meet the CFO. On the other hand, for a good part of the winter, my normal bedtime attire is a flannel sleepshirt and a flannel nightcap. (My normal bedroom temperature of a midwinter night is 15-16ºC, and I don’t like heavy covers.) ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/74 "2019-11-27T15:17:15Z")
> [@yendis](#): > > Or of course having deliberately slashed clothes meant you were staggeringly wealthy. > > [http://www.afashionhistory.com/quick-stories/ripped-jeans-are-for-kings-the-story-behind-slashing-clothes/](http://www.afashionhistory.com/quick-stories/ripped-jeans-are-for-kings-the-story-behind-slashing-clothes/) That’s an unusually silly article. Renaissance slashed clothing was entirely different. The slashes were carefully crafted in complex and elaborate patterns, and meticulously sewn to prevent ripping. It required much time-consuming work by skilled tailors or seamstresses. The fabric certainly wasn’t damaged, any more than it is in making any clothing. The purpose was to create a remarkably beautiful, opulent look, with a contrasting underlayer showing through. This is the exact opposite of randomly slashed jeans, which create a dressed down look. ---
**Author:** ![longPath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@longPath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/longPath)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2019, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/75 "2019-11-29T12:40:30Z")
It was my impression, growing up in the '50s and '60s, that one “dressed up” in order to appear as affluent as possible. There was a lot of “what would people think”? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2019, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/76 "2019-11-29T13:12:36Z")
> [@digs](#): > > The Kennedy years loosened up a bit (he didn’t wear a hat to his inauguration) False. Google “Kennedy inauguration top hat.” There are many photographs of Kennedy wearing a hat at his inauguration. > **[John F. Kennedy's Hat](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hat-trick/)** > > Did John F. Kennedy appear hatless at his inauguration? ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/77 "2019-11-29T16:02:59Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > This is the exact opposite of randomly slashed jeans, which create a dressed down look. Things came full-circle on the randomly slashed jeans. Once upon a time, you got that look by wearing a pair of jeans daily for a couple of years until they got destroyed. Then the fashion designers deliberately got hold of them, painstakingly re-created every rip, tatter, and slash (I don’t remember if they took care to prevent additional ripping), and sold new “distressed jeans” for $200+. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/78 "2019-11-29T23:26:13Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > That’s an unusually silly article. > > Renaissance slashed clothing was entirely different. The slashes were carefully crafted in complex and elaborate patterns, and meticulously sewn to prevent ripping. It required much time-consuming work by skilled tailors or seamstresses. The fabric certainly wasn’t damaged, any more than it is in making any clothing. The purpose was to create a remarkably beautiful, opulent look, with a contrasting underlayer showing through. > > This is the exact opposite of randomly slashed jeans, which create a dressed down look. [A form of that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devor%C3%A9) is now currently popular. > [@](#): > > Devoré (also called burnout) is a fabric technique particularly used on velvets, where a mixed-fibre material undergoes a chemical process to dissolve the cellulose fibers to create a semi-transparent pattern against more solidly woven fabric. Another variation is to create lace patterns with holes, also intended to reveal contrasting undergarments. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/79 "2019-11-29T23:43:08Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > Things came full-circle on the randomly slashed jeans. Once upon a time, you got that look by wearing a pair of jeans daily for a couple of years until they got destroyed. Then the fashion designers deliberately got hold of them, painstakingly re-created every rip, tatter, and slash (I don’t remember if they took care to prevent additional ripping), and sold new “distressed jeans” for $200+. this brought back memories of the [lead singer of Def Leppard.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/7/7a/Def_Leppard_-_Pour_Some_Sugar_on_me.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819/80 "2019-12-01T21:02:42Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Clothes were expensive, and most people had very few changes of clothing. > > So you could tell how wealthy a person was by the way they dressed. I’ve been reading through the works of Charles Dickens, and I’ve noticed how, upon a character being introduced into the story, Dickens almost always provided a detailed inventory of what the person was wearing. People keep telling me he did this because he was paid by the word, and that may have been part of it, but the more I read, the more it seems that he did it because, in that time, you could pretty much tell everything you needed to know about a person by how they were dressed. And, of course, in that period (and well beyond), most common professions had their own distinctive “uniforms” that instantly identified them. > [@longPath](#): > > It was my impression, growing up in the '50s and '60s, that one “dressed up” in order to appear as affluent as possible. > There was a lot of “what would people think”? Ha! Yeah, as a kid in the 1970s, I remember having to get “dressed up” for certain things, and recall hating my mom’s explanation, “So people won’t think I’m a bad mother” as a very silly reason for wearing uncomfortable clothes. It was still a time of distinction between “school clothes” and “play clothes”, which made elementary school P.E. class very annoying, trying to play sports in hard-soled leather shoes. It’s similar to how the clean-shaven look for men seems to have grown out of the Great Depression and the phrase, “No son of mine is going to look like he can’t afford to shave!” emphasized the idea that a beard made a man look poor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-everyone-in-the-past-so-well-dressed/843819.md?page=5)