Evolutionary biologist tackles question of trousers

[ctbuchanan]

A professor at the University of Connecticut has studied the origin of trousers. This is brief article on his conclusions:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...orses/259696/#
For those interested there is a more detailed discussion:
http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012...n-of-pants-ii/

[McFarkus]

I knew there had to be a logical explanation. The Romans considered breeches a barbarian garment. But they were, effectively part of a new and successful battle technology.

[Chas]

It makes sense. If one looks at the differences in anatomy between the genders, one would have thought that women would have gone into trousers first and that men would have stuck with - in our case kilts.

Regards

Chas

[ctbuchanan]

I found it interesting that he referred to some of the garments, i.e. the ones worn by Amerindians, as "kilts".

[pugcasso]

so horse riding (which I heard about before) and later bicycles (at least as an initial force in pointing women towards pants) caused the social increase in pants...

I don't ride a horse or a bicycle which explains my return to wearing non-pants I think.

a 3rd-century BC Chinese statesman, King Wuling, had getting his warriors to switch to pants from the traditional robes. "It is not that I have any doubt concerning the dress of the Hu," Wuling told an advisor. "I am afraid that everybody will laugh at me."

Imagine that... a world of non-pants wearers pointing at the one guy wearing pants wondering 'what the heck is he wearing'

[dea3369]

Imagine that... a world of non-pants wearers pointing at the one guy wearing pants wondering 'what the heck is he wearing'

Actually, I believe they'd be more generous than that. They'd give a thumbs up and say, "Nice pants!" Unfortunately, the Walmart MUG-wearers would still say, "You pre-vert! Get real and find yoself some non-pants." The question is whether the female twenty-somethings would swoon over the non-swish.

[Elf]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[Spartan Tartan]

I agree that it is a plausable arguement, but that is all...the authors argument. A conjecture. I dont think it is enuff tobsuggest that the world over, people switched to pants simply to fight from horseback. Certainly there had to be other contributing factors, no?


I am.no expert, but I would need a little more than one gents opinion and reasonable conjecture to pass this on as the reason the whole world wears pants for daily purposes. Has a horse never been to Scotland, must not have. That is probably why the Scots never abandoned their kilted ways

[freddie]

All I know is that the guy who invented them should have had a pair wrapped around his kneck and pulled tight

[Pleater]

I have no difficulty in riding a bicycle when wearing a reverse Kingussie kilt, and could probably manage a horse with saddle/stirrups in the same way, sitting on the inverted pleat - but I would not ride for any length of time, I think.
When doing a lot of cycling I wear cycling shorts under my kilt - putting them on causes many eyes on stalks reactions - they are meant to be outer wear and visible, after all. Maybe it is the way the pleats shimmy which sets them all aflutter.

Anne the Pleater :ootd: