Talk:Clothing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Bold text

 This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B Clothing has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Old talk

Uhhhhhhhhhhh Should fetishism be heading 3, above a discussion of common fabrics? wtf?


Though it is mainly human who wear clothes, I think the restriction to the human body may be an overgeneralisation: there are dogs, for instance, who wear sweaters, horses who wear blankets, monkeys who are dressed up in little ridiculous vests and fezzes, chimpanzees who wear suits and smoke cigars... Generally the practice for non-human animals is nudity but there can be exceptions... --Daniel C. Boyer

I wonder why denim is mentioned separately while a multitude of materials are grouped under cloth.

This appears to have been changed now. Only now denim is the only example of cloth. Oh, well.

This article seems to bizarrely emphasize fringe topics like tranvestism, "wet clothing", "inappropriate clothing", etc., while omitting or glossing over more important aspects like climate, culture, tailoring, fashion, status, and style. A major pruning job appears to be in order, with the pruned-off debris possibly forming a "freaky clothing" article. NuclearWinner 02:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Please concentrate on adding useful content, not on removing what you do not like but others consider useful content.--Patrick 06:15, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank for your response, Patrick. I'm sure you know that removal of inappropriate content is just as much a part of wikipedia as addition of useful content is. I continue to be unfavorably impressed by the bizarre, fetishistic content of much of this article. "Sweat stains" and "exposure of genitalia" are not at all relevant to clothing the way I understand it. If a group of contributors found my points to be off base, well...I'd reconsider. But it seems that you may be the only person who is interested in having this odd and offensive material included. This is the kind of stuff that makes wikipedia occasionally resemble the contents of a male teenage nerd's troubled brain. I understand you are a sysop...may I also hope that you have the self-restraint to avoid an editing war as I try to imrpove this article? Thanks in advance. NuclearWinner 20:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
To take your example, I do not think sweat stains are so taboo that mentioning anything about them should be avoided, and on the other hand I do not think that they are too trivial for anybody to ever feel embarrassed about them or even notice them. Thus I find it odd that you have a problem with mentioning them. What is offensive about that little bit of text?--Patrick 21:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Zora, a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. However, I have been sewing for fifty years. I'm going to be working on the fashion, clothing, and sewing articles as I have time.

I added a little bit to the history of clothing and promised a main article -- which I have yet to write.

I also deleted the bit in the main article about Victorian women and corsets.

I know a number of women active in SCA, Regency dancing, etc. who wear corsets and do not find them at all uncomfortable *unless tight-laced*. Some heavy-breasted women say that corsets are MORE comfortable than bras, because the weight of the breasts is carried and distributed by the whole corset rather than hanging just from the shoulders.

Extreme tight-lacing in pursuit of 18 inch waists, on the other hand, can be uncomfortable, cause indigestion, headaches, and fainting, etc.

The nastiness of corsets is something that a lot of people think they KNOW, without ever having tried a corset. While I'm uncorseted myself, I'm ready to believe people who say they can be comfortable.

[edit] Complete revision!

Somehow I got started and couldn't stop. I haven't eaten or dressed, but the clothing article is completely revised. It's much shorter and less biased towards current Western clothing.

I'll probably add a companion section to the history of clothing, a "current clothing fashions" section. A lot of the deleted material would fit under the "Western fashion" section, under fetishism, teen fashion, rock fashion, grunge, goth, etc. Probably in satellite articles. This arrangement would also give a lot of scope for Wikipedians to describe current fashions where they are -- wherever they are.

Zora 19:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of types of clothing

Patrick restored a link to a page listing types of clothing, and called the deletion of the link weird.

Listing every type of garment ever known to man (or woman) would take pages and pages and be completely useless. As it stands, the list is a hodge-podge of articles of common Western wear and "stuff that came to mind while making the list".

A more systematic approach would be to drop the list and instead concentrate on making lots of pages under Current Fashions/Clothing (which I intend to put in soon, as soon as I manage to get dressed :) ) and History of Clothing. Then we can have an article on classical Greek clothing that would include the chiton, classical Roman that would include the toga, Chinese clothing that would include the cheongsam, etc.

Perhaps we can agree that as soon as I get the current and historical fashion pages laid out and the items on the current list parcelled out among the pages, we can drop the list?

Zora 00:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even if every item in the list is mentioned somewhere in the article or a related article, the list as index to the separate articles on these items is useful.--Patrick 22:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sociology of clothing? Not really.

Pedant, reinstating your squicky dissertation on grotty clothing as "sociology of clothing" is just plain wrong. It is not sociology, anthropology, or any kind of social science. LET GO OF IT!

If you want to put it somewhere, it might appear under "fetishes" if radically edited.

Zora 07:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Um, that wasn't me, ok? I'm on your side, Zora, that stuff might belong in an encyclopedia, but is certainly not the focus of this article, at least it shouldn't be. I'm not even going to read the article to see, just followed the what links here from my home page, to where PedanticallySpeaking was welcoming Pedant17, saw the discussion on his talk page, thought I'd peep in here and have a look at the discuss page, and it looks like it's old history, so while I'm tempted to look, I won't , being hoplessly wikiaddicted I know my weaknesses, and I'm loathe to add another whole constellation of cloth/clothing/clothes/fabric/fiber arts articles... not now. But I'll be back I'm sure.Pedant 00:16, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

[edit] Measurements

Sorry I can't find this info myself and place it hear but I'd really like to know about the various measurements of clothing.

Why for example is a size 8 shoe in the UK a size 7 in America and a size 26 in Japan? What does a size 34 waist in English mean? Why are most mens t-shirts way too long (coming down to the middle of the thigh instead of just below the belt?) etc. If you have any of this info post it or leave a link.

Good questions! The place to post answers would be in the clothing manufacture section, which isn't started. The short answer would be that when all clothes are made to fit particular customers, and there is no factory-manufactured ready-to-wear, sizing isn't an issue. You only need sizes for mass-produced clothing, which has only existed for the past few hundred years.
The problem with mass-produced clothing is, of course, that people don't come in standard sizes. We're all idiosyncratic. You may be a perfect size something-or-other except for your neck, which is larger than usual. Well, too bad. Take it or leave it, in the world of ready-to-wear. Unless you're willing to pay for alterations or custom clothing.
Size standards have evolved haphazardly in various regional industries. There is no international standard. What's worse, the industries themselves subvert the standards by making them bigger and bigger. Women would much rather say that they wear a size 8 dress than a size 10 dress, so some manufacturers label size 10 dresses as 8s, because they sell better that way. Clothing salespeople will then say things like "that line runs large". That's why you have to try everything on and can't trust sizes.
Clear as mud? Zora 06:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Paper clothes

I heard that paper clothes were getting popular in the 70s. Could anybody expand on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm old enough to have lived through the 70s ;) and I don't remember ever seeing anyone in paper clothing. I might have seen it in fashion magazines. People were trying all sorts of strange things then.
Actually there IS paper clothing now, but it's medical. Paper smocks for patients, paper jumpsuits for people in surgery, etc. Making and throwing away the paper is cheaper than washing and sterilizing regular cloth. Zora 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes, but it's also cheaper because people don't steal it! - Nunh-huh 06:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
was somewhat popular in two places: Industry, as in clean rooms, hospital scrubs, Modesty garb and in 'avante-garde' circles, as fashion statements.. was really, seems to me, the very late 60's through mid 70's. Tyvek has generally replaces paper clothing in industry. Mostly I think it was recognised as being environmentally unsound to discard clothing, and make it from trees, which were at the time beginning to be clearcut at accelerating rates. See? I told you I was unable to resist editing. I'm gone... nice to meet you all.Pedant 00:21, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

[edit] Fetish because...?

The article says that because there is a close relationship between clothing and sexual display (huh, really? 99% of clothing and wearing of clothing has absolutely nothing to do with sexual display, except in certain peculiar scenes), that it follows that humans often develop fetishes. Actually humans do not often develop fetishes. They are rare and considered quirky by most. Most of our clothing in the West is strictly functional: relaxed fit jeans, sweats, loose t-shirts, running shoes, etc. Women take more time to preen, this is true, and their clothing is often purposefully designed to display or exaggerate, but this still does not mean that these items are often fetishized. The wearers are eroticized, true, but the not clothes. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 06:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've run into problems on other Wikipedia pages with the use of weasel words like "often". One person's "often" is another person's "hardly ever". But there's no way to quantify it, which would solve the dispute.

A discussion of scientific results can help quantify, or simply the use of the work 'some'. whiskers

As for the links between clothing/adornment and sexual display -- if you don't see it, I don't know HOW to convince you. It's a major part of women's lives -- and I say that as a woman who lives in plain shorts and T-shirts and has fewer clothes than anyone else she knows. I know I'm an outlier! Men are usually less interested in anything that looks like "display" -- although in fact they're incredibly sensitive to anything that gives the wrong message about their masculinity (if they're straight). But it's men who spend the most time ranking and grading women on appearance and are the most interested in anything in a woman's appearance that signals sexual availability. Might be something hardwired here, much as I hate to say it. I vaguely remember reading something doing brain scans of men and women exposed to visual sex stimuli and discovering that men's visual centers showed a lot more activity. But then ... that sort of response could possibly be culturally conditioned. Hmmm, well, anyway ...

It's also men who are the most prone to fetishes of various sorts, including the clothing fetishes. Before I got here, a fair number of the clothing articles seem to have been contributed by men with um, weird interests in clothing. Look back at this talk page.

This might be true, but it is hardly representative of most men. whiskers

Well, I did look over the article and change "often" to "may" in the fetish section, which answers some of your concerns. Zora 22:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless we get some input from others who say that the article is too focused on sexual display and fetishism, I'd ask you to leave what we have. I'm certainly prepared to try to tone it down if there are a NUMBER of people who say that the emphasis is too strong. Zora 08:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think 'may' works a lot better. It tones the fetish thing down minimally. I have never heard of foot-binding being a fetish. I cannot imagine men lusting over the deformed feet of women forced to do that by social conventions and fashion of the time. But as you say, until more people complain... [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 05:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed religious myth

DDerby recently added an account of the origin of clothing from Genesis. I don't think that has any place in an encyclopedia, unless as part of a separate page on how various religions account for the origin of clothing. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim myth is just one of many, and shouldn't be given special treatment. Zora 10:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm....the account does have myth-like qualities, and also does somewhat account for the origin of clothing. Why DO we wear clothing?

[edit] Removed religious myth

DDerby recently added an account of the origin of clothing from Genesis. I don't think that has any place in an encyclopedia, unless as part of a separate page on how various religions account for the origin of clothing. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim myth is just one of many, and shouldn't be given special treatment. Zora 10:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, this explanation has great historical and even contemporary significance. That was the sole explanation for the western world for a long time, and still is held by millions of Jews and Christians (and Muslims?). Saying the Judeo-Christian-Muslim myth is one of many and does not deserve special treatment ignores the incredible influence of those religions - I dare say this account has been more influential on the modern world than any other. As far as special treatment goes, I support putting other significant accounts on this page; I merely am only familiar with the account of Adam and Eve. I considered putting it in a separate section - it's not significant enough IMO to create a separeate article - but I couldn't break up the sections in a non-awkward way, especially as it was merely a 3-sentence paragraph. DDerby 19:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. The Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese and just about everyone else wore cloths for centuries before any Judeo-Christian myths were invented. And to suggest that Sarah Jessica Parker lusts after Jimmy Choo shoes because of original sin, is just a bit silly. -- Solipsist 20:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it caused clothing, but that it is an influential explanation. A view held by so many deserves a passing mention, at least. DDerby 20:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Significance for you, perhaps. For me, it has exactly the same teeth-biting-on-tinfoil effect of compulsory prayer on public occasions. (I'm a Buddhist and we don't pray to "God".) It would make sense as part of an article on "history of theories of clothing origins". Putting it in the same section as scientific accounts of clothing origins is like mandating that creationism be taught along with evolution. I don't care how incredibly influential or significant Biblical literalism is; it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Zora 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I support putting it in a separate section. DDerby 20:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find DDerby's recent modifications relevant and neutral. The existence of the Bible and the fact that some people believe it not POV. The Biblical story of the origin of clothing, and the fact that historically people have felt the need to cite it, is an inportant element in the cultural history of clothing. I think DDerby's addition of 10:43, 2 September 2005 should stay.

I have read the argument just above; I think I understand some of the reasoning on both sides. I am open to discussion about it, and I hope that discussion will be more substantive than a fiat pronouncement of "dang it, no Biblical additions."--Tom harrison 19:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora says (please correct this if I've misunderstood) the "Bible is NOT privileged over other sacred texts"

I haven't suggested otherwise. But neither should the Bible be the object of particular disfavor. If there's a point of view you'd like expressed, please consider adding it. Still, this doesn't address my point above. This is the section I'm referring to, quoted here:

The Jewish and Christian religions give an account of the origin of clothing in Genesis 3:21. In this passage, Adam and Eve make their first coverings from leaves, for the purpose of privacy. Soon after, God makes garments of skins for them.

This seems to me to be of neutral POV, relevant to the article, and important element of cultural history. If you think otherwise, please tell me why. --Tom harrison 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly said, it is POV to single out this one particular religious account, out of possibly THOUSANDS of different mythological accounts of the origin of clothing, for inclusion in the article. It would be NPOV to write an article about, say, traditional and non-scientific accounts of clothing origins which surveyed ALL the stories that humans have told, and then link the clothing article to it. If you aren't willing to do that, then you're asking for special treatment for your religion. Zora 03:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I added a line or two mentioning that there are other stories and made a link to an article to be written. That gives you more space to elaborate on the Genesis account. Then you can use some of the many many pictures of Adam and Eve, link to whatever articles on Christian iconography exist. OK? Zora 07:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Zora. Wikipedia policy is to be neutral, meaning that something controversial should stay off unless one is able to explain all (or at least most) relevant sides. If you really care about this subject, then spend an hour, do the research, and get citations to neutral sources on all sides (say, the clothing myths for the civilizations listed by Solipsist and a few others). Research is not that hard, especially with so many books and articles available online nowadays (and many libraries have remote access programs in place so you don't even have to leave home). Unless, of course, you live in an area where the libraries are so poor they can't even afford database access. See Roger J. Traynor (my most recent pet article) for an example of one heavily researched Wikipedia article where all the sources but one (the Friedman book) were all pulled from online databases. Look at the discussion page for Traynor and you'll see that another user challenged my assertions about Traynor's brillance, so I did the research, and then he agreed I was right and backed off. --Coolcaesar 07:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think religious relations to clothing is very important. They are very important, I mean, clothing is what the west appears to associate greatly with Islam (besides terrorism that is ~_~). In any case, I support mythical origins of clothing for all religions... with none getting a special place. We must worry about article bloat so it will likely have to keep it on another article. I think it's important to say literally the Bible talks about origins of clothings... Jewish and Christian religions don't necessarily. Catholics don't believe that to be truth, just like most don't believe that Moses wrote teh Bible, etc. So, place it in context, and add other religions, etc. Don't place it in the same stream of history that the anthroplogists are talking about... it's different, and much less verifiable. If you want to write about that stuff, do it right. gren グレン 07:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Mythical origin of clothing does deserve a place in an encyclopedia article. Borisblue 17:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
And why was this posted in WP:WQA? This is a content dispute, no wikiquette rules were broken here. Borisblue 17:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That was me. The top of the page says that it's for getting quick response. Since I have posted RFCs and no one came (I don't think anyone monitors them), I thought the WQA was an accepted alternative. If it's not, I'm sorry to have broken the rules. Zora 21:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't known about WP:WQA. Certainly I did not know Zora had claimed that "Two Christian fundamentalists want the Genesis account ... to have equal time." This is a gross mis-characterization of my position. I am content with the article as it stands, but I have to say that being slandered like this is offensive. If one's position is valid, reasoned argument will support it. If one finds it necessary to lie, it might be wiser to reexamine the merits of one's argument.
I am sure there's a page on Wikipedia where anyone can go and write that a 'Christian fundamentalist didn't get his way and left in a huff.' That is not the case. I have no special expertise in the area of clothing, and my editing has mostly involved minutia. I see that Zora has made substantive and sustained contributions to this page, and I hope those contributions continue.--Tom harrison 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Slandered? When I see folks who want to put in Genesis as history, I think of them as fundamentalists. Do you prefer another name? Evangelical? You're correctly sensing that I'm hostile, true. I am upset at the whole Creationism and Intelligent design brouhaha and I don't want to see the same sort of thing invading other scientific disciplines, such as anthropology and archaeology. I think it upsets me even more because I am religious (if of a different faith) and every time a fundamentalist/evangelical/whatever does something silly, I get tarred with the same brush. Zora 04:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I plan to do the research soon and add a section on significant religious and mythological explanations for the origin of clothing. Chances are it will turn out to be large enough that I'll make a separate article. DDerby(talk) 16:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is definitely incomplete without a myth section. Compare fire. While it chiefly deals with the physics of fire, it also has a myth section that mentions, among other things the Prometheus story. Borisblue 04:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of "sex" section

An anon replaced the old "sex" section with an essay that removes most of the concrete examples and replaces them with what I read as very wordy, pompous prose. I don't want to just revert, but when I get time, I am going to work over the revision. I think a lot of it is unfortunate. Zora 02:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section on messages re sexual availability

It must have been more than a month ago that an anon arrived and replaced the section on clothing as message re sexual availability with what I thought at the time a pompous essay re human sexuality and clothing. When I first read it, I thought it an intrusion on the article -- in fact, it read like something that had been cut and pasted from somewhere else. But I figured that since I had written the prose that had been replaced, perhaps I was just being unduly defensive of my own prose. I decided to let it sit a bit and see if anyone else would do anything, or if I would change my mind. Well, I let it sit for a LONG time and on coming back to it, I still thought it was wordy, meandering, and not quite to the point. So I put the original text back. If the anon who wrote that bit is still here, I invite him/her to come to the talk page and discuss things. Zora 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to future clothing

Anon editor -- all the trends you mention may be hot stuff in your circle of friends, but that doesn't mean that they're universally indulged or that they're the wave of the future.

Do-it-yourself clothing (either sewing from scratch or recycling used clothing) is an ancient cultural tradition -- as ancient as clothing. One had to be well-to-do to have the money for brand-new clothing made to fit one's measurements. Poorer folk made do. When I was growing up, many women still did sew for their families, as a matter of course -- because it was cheaper and better. I learned to sew in that tradition. Then I entered my hippie period where I also tie-dyed, embroidered, repurposed clothes from Goodwill, etc. (That's not NEW -- it's 60s.) Some people are still doing that (see Threads and Ornament magazines) but the bulk of today's clothing is industrially manufactured. It's cheaper. Few people have the time to sew these days. They discard and buy new rather than mend.

Peak oil and higher transport prices may mean more localization, but I doubt that hand-made is ever going to be a trend for anyone but the young (who have time, before kids and jobs and mortgages crush them) and "bohos" (to use David Brooks' interesting coinage). Zora 00:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (who just bought sixteen yards of muslin for curtains, and has to go wash it)

____________________

I'm talking about trends that ARE happening on the west coast, which is always a few years ahead of everyone else in clothing. Take a walk down Alberta Street or Division in Portland and you will see EVERY SINGLE 20-30 year old wearing hand-made, DIY clothing. Go to all the boutiques and clothing stores and you will see the same thing. DIY is a remerging trend. Just because your circle of friends ISN"T into it doesn't mean shit.

also... i think you underestimate the collapse that this society is under going. I think that it's important to talk about some of the trends outside of your techno-clothing vision. What about all the alergies that everyone is getting. Half my neighbors have Advanced Chemical Sensitivity and have to wear unbleach cotton or hand-made flax clothing.

Jordan (B.A. in futurist studies)

Jordan, take a username and welcome. I'm glad you're discussing. I think you may be right that the "future" section gives too rosy a view of the future. Will it be all clean and shiny and happy, just like Star Trek? or will it be like the Firefly 'verse, with lots of grunge? I'm OK with deleting the whole section, as Wikipedia really shouldn't be doing prediction. Instead we could have something like "Current trends in clothing" and link to articles on what people are doing right NOW. That would mean that you can contribute an article on street fashion in the US Pacific Northwest and take pictures with your digital camera and contribute them to Wikipedia. Does that sound like more fun than fighting? Zora 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


sounds much better! i'll get a username soon,

Jordan

One important caveat: There's supposed to be no original research on Wikipedia. That means that you can't write an article on, um, "The pyramids were built by aliens from flying saucers". You have to have references. In this case, you'd probably need newspaper and magazine articles. Otherwise there's no guarantee that the trend you're seeing isn't just a figment of your imagination. Not impugning you, just hoping you see the problem. Zora 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"...possibly leading to fully animated clothing and some forms of invisibility cloaks"

Uh? From wild speculation ("animated clothing") to pseudo-scientific fantasy ("invisibility cloaks")???? Could just as well write about people getting a new pair of arms. Speculation has no place in Wikipedia... --Fbastos 07:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been one of the editors putting the most work into this article. I kept that section from a much earlier version of the article and I've never been all that fond of it. But I was somewhat afraid to rock the boat. If you want to delete it, you have my blessing. Zora 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fur clothing of old

Was the fur worn on the outside or the inside? In the picture of the Neanderthal mannequin it is worn on the outside, but is this confirmed as historically correct? - Diceman 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the historical accuracy but I can venture a guess. Most fur should be worn with the hairs to the exterious for the simple reason that the won't chafe the skin that way ... and they will still provide "dead air" for insulations (air trapped amongst the hairs won't blow away with every little draft quite as easily as it would from a smooth surface) ... and water will be shed more efficiently. If you think about it, nature provided the fur as an adaptations against the elements (for it's original bearer). So, naturally, that would be the logical way to wear it after you'd aquired second hand. Yes, I recognize that some furs are sensual and pleasant to rub against ... and that this is the way people tend to use fur rugs and the like, I also understand that fur trim around hood, sleeve and legging hems, etc is practical and handy. However, I think you'd find that wearing the fur to the inside for any more than that would probably be somewhat unpleasant in the long run ... it would be crushed and matted against your skin and lose most of the qualities that make it useful. JimD 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Canadian Inuit (Eskimo) will wear two layers of clothing in winter, one with the fur next to the skin and another with the fur out. That's what I've found so far, googling. Dunno about summer -- may have just skin garments with the fur removed -- I'm trying to remember wonderful film I saw, Atanarjuat, The Fast Runner, about Inuit life. You might rent that film if you're interested in fur clothing. Zora 06:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

That para is there because a number of Christian editors (who don't seem to be here any longer) felt strongly that the story of Adam and Eve should be included in the article. The para was an attempt to reply to their concerns without privileging Christian fundamentalism. I think it should stay, just to head off any other such attempts. Zora 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I reverted Magnamopus' edits

Magnamopus, I reverted your edits. Perhaps that was lazy; perhaps I should have tried harder to see if there was anything to preserve. However, I felt that the section on signals of sexual availability had been edited in a way that didn't improve it, and that included some statements (red lipsticked lips evoking the labia majora) that should either be referenced or removed. I also felt that changing clothing fetishes to fetish clothing was wrong. Men -- it's usually men -- can have fetishes re perfectly ordinary clothing, clothing that would not normally be defined as "fetish clothing". Buying skin-tight patent leather suits with zippers or ten-inch high heels is a completely different matter! I added a sentence saying that there IS clothing designed to satisfy particular fetishes. I hope that this conveys some of your intent. Zora 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up! Complete from-scratch referenced rewrite coming.

This article is simply not up to the encyclopedic standards dictated by its subject matter (ie article title), in form, scope, focus, or presentation.

I'm not going to add a template to this effect to the main page, or call for some tender love and care from the appropriate quarters of wikiland, but rather over the next few weeks I will contemplate, research, collect appropriate references and public domain images, as well as, for comparison, wikipedia articles that in my eyes bite off as much as the headword "clothing" does, only which chew it successfully.

I appreciate all the work everyone here has done to bring this article to the level it has reached, but it seems to me to be languishing at a "local maximum", and that only a fresh perspective, with copious comparison to truly outstanding wikipedia articles of a similarly large scope, could bring this article out of obscurity. (It doesn't even seem to get edited much.) 24.63.177.194 07:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Anon right now. [I'll edit this entry as time goes on. For an idea of some of problems with the article page, just read the comments above from visitors passing through!]

If you're planning a rewrite, it would be a good idea to register, so that we can call you by a name, and also to set up a temp page. You can post your rewrite on the temp page, we can wrangle over it, and then replace the main article. With really major changes, that seems to head off some acrimony and revert wars. Also, might want to invite the few other clothing editors. PKM, frex. If you don't know how to set up a temp page, ask me. Zora 08:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I applaud a complete, referenced rewrite and would be happy to join the party. PKM 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
On the scratch pad for the new version visible at the top of this page I've put a request for cryptic comments to influence the write-up. If there is any aspect you have ideas about, just leave a cryptic comment, and in many weeks the candidate article will (hopefully) incorporate your guidance. 24.63.177.118 10:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Anon.

[edit] Have set up scratch pad

See the top of this page for a link to the scratch pad. Put up any new version there and we can work on it before replacing the current version. Zora 09:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no bludgeoning the main page with the candidate until a chance for you and others to review and edit it off-page. As I've said this won't be for many weeks though... 24.63.177.118 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Anon.

[edit] kiyoshi's type of clothes

i just love those kind of clothes,it like my kind of type of clothes.well nothing to say so sorry. buh-bye.

[edit] International Cleaning Codes

Why does this article not include a definition for each of the icons listed in cleaning instructions? I have a foreign item, do not understand the text, and am trying to figure out what each icon means. I thought maybe wiki would help, but you haven't even included a link to relevant info... :(

[edit] sexual availability

I think it’s problematic to say that clothing reflects the wearer’s sexual availability or modesty. A person’s clothing is influenced by many, many complex factors, so I don’t think the issue can be reduced to such a simple conclusion. This section would probably appear less biased if it also referred to cultural conventions regarding clothing and the sexual desirability of men. (On a personal note, the idea that clothing advertises sexual availability makes me feel really uncomfortable because I have heard that argument used to justify rape. That last sentence, especially, strikes me as really creepy: “All the details proclaim sexual desirability, despite the ostensible message of respectability.”)61.32.254.250 00:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Carey

Please read the WHOLE section. It is a list of the various messages that clothing can convey. Sexual availability is only one of them. As for the observations on women wearing abaya -- so far as I know, it's accurate. Women forced to wear uniforms designed to suppress signals of flirtatious interest have found ways to broadcast it. Another example might be Japanese schoolgirl uniforms. "Fast" girls roll up the skirt at the waistband, to make the skirt shorter, and roll up their sleeves.
I think you have a point in that men's signals of sexual availability aren't covered. These tend to be more muted, in any culture -- men are assumed to be constantly on the prowl. Alas. But there's the unbuttoned shirt and the gold chain bit. Can you think of any others?
There are two female editors keeping an eye on this article (PKM and me) and neither of us see that para as a justification for rape. Sending out flirtatious signals is a sign that one is interested in negotiating, not in being raped. How about changing "availability" to "interest". Would that work for you? Zora 05:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! At least for the example of the Western woman (with the tight clothing, makeup, and high heels), I don’t really agree that the primary intention of the wearer is to signal sexual availability. (For example, I think self-esteem...sense of identity...the extent to which someone identifies as a certain gender...often significantly influence the decision to dress this way.) However, I do agree that these clothing types have been culturally sexualized...and that in many Western cultures these clothes are coded and interpreted by society as sexual symbols.
So I wondered if it would be possible to differentiate between the cultural interpretations and the wearer’s intent. So instead of phrasing the idea like “a Western woman might do this to indicate this...,” maybe it could say something like “These clothes may be interpreted in Western society as symbolic of sexual availability.” (I know my complaint may seem minor, but I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to reply.)61.32.254.250 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Carey

When clothing is sending messages, it's like language. You can't use some bits of a language and "intend" them in a different way, then complain that you've been misunderstood. If you say, "George Bush should be (insert word for violent termination here)" and the Secret Service shows up at your door, they aren't going to pay much attention if you say that you intended "I need to buy some milk at the supermarket". If you dress like a streetwalker (using a code that they've developed to signal availability), you can't complain when people ask you your price. If you're taking the current feminist position that women should be able to dress however they damn well please and people should KNOW what they intend and don't intend -- well, obviously I don't agree with that. It's nonsensical. People can't read your mind.

There is an issue with misunderstanding. That is, there are men who interpret any clothing short of a nun's habit as an invitation to sexual intercourse, or rape. There are also men who see the donning of some items of coded-for-flirtatious-intent clothing as an invitation to rape. Those guys are just very very bad at reading the clothing code. Signaling flirtatious intent means you want to flirt and negotiate, not that you're inviting rape.

The only rape-inviting clothing may be fetish clothing combined with bondage. But even there, in the BSDM scene, people just play with the symbols -- they have elaborate contracts and safe codes designed to insure that the "bottom" is safe and indeed controls the whole encounter.

Now if you want to argue that no item of clothing ever signals anything more than a willingness to negotiate, I'd accept that.

Um, I'm rambling. You've sparked some interesting thoughts. I'm not sure that they belong in the article, however. I don't see any need to revise the article again, myself. Zora 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request: History

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

So I was wondering down Essex Street in the Leather District downtown Boston, and I came across a historical plaque. It said that Boston and New York were historically credited with the creation of the ready to wear garment industry, in the 1800s. This implies that previously, all clothing was custom-made for the wearer. This is a huge and very interesting shift in the way that people acquire and wear clothes, and I thought it should be documented in this article (and probably also Ready-to-wear, History of Boston, Massachusetts and History of New York City, if accurate). -- Beland 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, that plaque is wrong. I believe that the military, once it started using uniforms in the, um, 18th century?, provided ready-sewn uniforms to the lower-level troops. Only the officers had their uniforms tailored. That would have started in Europe. It's also possible to start with clothing that's partly pre-sewn and then do a few last-minute customization steps, and this may have happened all over the world at various places and times. Frex, I bought a kameez from India that started with an extremely well-sewn blank -- everything done but the side seams -- and the seller had then done an extremely sloppy job of sewing the side seams to customize it. Clearly done in two steps.
Worth, the late 19th century Parisian couturier, used that system of partial pre-sewing and then customization. HE started out in a British tailor shop.
Ready-made certainly wouldn't have "started" in the U.S. The "factory" system is to a great extent a British invention, and they surely would have been the first to apply it to clothing. More real research needed. Zora 23:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's possible that a distinction is made between the military and commercially available ready-made clothes. But the military precursors are also an interesting part of the history. -- Beland 00:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh I will give New England and NY credit for the modern notion of ready-to-wear (and see Brooks Brothers) but garments like shirts, cloaks, etc. could be bought premade as early as the sixteenth century (though they weren't always). A proper history of ready-to-wear seems to be required - who's got good reference materials? - PKM 02:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bizarre opening paragraph

"Humans nearly universally wear clothing"

does that sound weird to anyone else!? can we safely assume that the average wikipedia user knows that humans wear clothes. just seems really strange and out of sorts with the style of wikipedia over all.

It's the kind of thing social scientists say. What you think you "know" about clothing may not be true. Frex, some humans do NOT wear clothing. Like Hindu sadhus, or various hunting-gathering tribes. Therefore it is necessary to say that most, but not all, humans wear clothing.
An article re something as basic as "clothing" has to be written in the style of the Martian anthropologist (who may not wear clothing, who has three feet, and mates by spawning) trying to understand just what it is these hominids are doing. If you're not used to looking at yourself from the outside, it sounds weird. Zora 15:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing In sport

I wanted to know if we could do clothing in sport like jerseys, sponsors etc. EVen things like professional wrestling attire and what it represents...what do y'all think?

I would suggest a new article Sportswear as a catch-all, with individual articles on things like professional wrestling attire and its symbolism. Great idea. What we call "sportswear" today (sort of crisp-casual) started out as clothing for golfing and so on, then for spectators. - PKM 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps you're looking for the Category:Sports clothing, which I believe takes care of your request? The Editrix 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Perhaps a month and a half ago, some vandal removed half the article and created a section on "Sexual fetishes" which was moved to the top. NO ONE noticed. Including me. I was reading only the latest diffs and not the whole article. I didn't notice the diff in which the article was vandalized.

I know that some good edits have been made to the surviving sections in the six weeks since the vandalism, and I'll run some diffs and try to pick up the good edits. I can't do it NOW, I'm supposed to be doing RL work.

At the moment, I'd vote for any changes to WP that would slow down the vandals. Zora 23:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this all fixed now? Stephen B Streater 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category

A new category has been created Category:Types of clothing. This should make navigation easier. Any queries, let me know. Cheers! SilkTork 09:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kilts

If the clothing article were insisting that men wear pants, then, now, and always, it might make sense to have a section giving another view (no! men wear sarongs and kilts!). However, since the article takes no position whatsoever on the subject of men's nether garments, inserting a rant on men's right to wear kilts is completely out of place. It is propaganda and it is not wanted.

I'm not a pants enthusiast. I lived in a country where men wore skirts, and I had my ex-husband buy and wear one to fancy occasions. I think actor Nathan Fillion looks absolutely yummy in a leather kilt. However, I don't think the clothing article is the place to conduct crusades. Zora 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Improvement

Mainly revolving around fashion, would it help you (refering to any Wikipedian) to make this into a WikiProject? Big and broad enough to me. Colonel Marksman 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do the work. I've set up one WikiProject, WikiProject Indian cinema, and I think it has helped editors discuss and coordinate. I'm not sure that I'm up to starting another project. I'll help.
I have a strong preference for WikiProject Clothing over WikiProject Fashion, as I think "fashion" brings "high fashion" to mind, whereas just plain "clothing" is the stuff we put on in the morning, even if it's jeans and a T-shirt. Zora 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Section

I think a lot of the "social aspects of clothing" section should either be scrapped or expanded in a way that applies to the present as well as the past, and which also isn't completely ethnocentric. there are TONS of ways (beyond just uniforms and high couture prices) that clothing marks our status, social groups, ethnicity, etc. in modern western society. so it's really weird to only see things like medieval sumptuary laws or muslim hijab mentioned in this section. maybe it would come off as original research (though i know some anthropologist or sociologist has to have done a thesis on this at least), but it really comes off badly as is. this section of the article distinctly implies that clothing as a social marker is a thing of the past, or of "weird" minority cultures. when that is certainly not the case. looking around me on the NYC subway every morning I can identify what economic class, ethnicity, social "tribe", and often occupation and religion everyone on the train is, all by what they're wearing. right now in 2006, in the good ole US of A.

i also think the section on clothing as a marker of marriage should be removed, since nothing described in that section applies to clothing. wedding rings are not clothing, they're jewelery, and sindoor would probably be put in the category of cosmetics -- it's a red powder applied to the part in one's hair, not a garment. the white clothing worn by Indian widows doesn't belong in a category on marriage but either its own category (death, mourning?) or as an example somewhere else as it doesn't indicate whether someone is/was married or not, but whether someone is a widow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.178.3 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

There's an article on Social aspects of clothing (now named that -- used to be another name) that was started and "owned" by an editor with what seemed to me to be a prurient interest in dirty, ripped, stained clothing. He was interested in contemporary UK-US-European youth mores, it seemed to me, and had little concern with history or the rest of the world. I have had had stay away from that article, because it was just me against him. However, hard work on the breakout article often means that we can write a better summary in the main article. Do you want to try working on the breakout article? I don't know if that editor is still there. I can't promise to back you up consistently ... I'm watching so many articles that I can't keep up.
The other thing that should be mentioned is that some attention must be paid to social significance in every history of costume or contemporary fashion article. Most of those articles are in bad shape. Many WP editors are young male geeks, who, as a group, aren't known for their interest in fashion. Hard slogging work on the costume and fashion articles would give us a solid base for some real conclusions.
Oh, and a final thing -- fashion can change very rapidly, as a means of displaying one's affiliation with and knowledge of an "in" group. One season it's pared-down black dresses of sculptural form and the next it's floaty chiffon and frou-frou, if the reference is Western high fashion. Or, if you're a Japanese schoolgirl, rolling up your uniform skirt to exactly the right degree of "too short" may vary from clique to clique. Should we really try to document all that? Zora 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. We may not have the right examples of clothing displaying marital status. I'm sure that there are many, I just haven't looked them up. Widowhood IS a marital status, BTW -- marital status is "are you married or not? are you a young virgin or a widow?" Hmmm, I just realized that we left out special clothing for weddings and funerals ... major oversight! Zora 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging folding clothing into clothing article

Yes, sure, makes sense to me. A section on clothing storage in the clothing maintenance section? Zora 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade

I removed an image after coming across it in Temple garments. From what I can tell this user is on a crusade to insert this image in any article he thinks he can argue it has relevence. I don't think it has relevence here because the picture does not add any information to what is already in the text Abeo Paliurus 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, it is not relevent and will stay removed. pschemp | talk 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason for this is that the clothing article is a general overview, mostly related to outerwear. Such detail is not appropriate. At most a sentence and link to the Temple garments article may be warranted if the other editors on the page agree, but I think even that is too much detail for such an unimportant thing.pschemp | talk 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sound reasoning, Pschemp and Abeo. I'll go along with this. Zora 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Does nobody else here see the heading Religious habits and special religious clothing in the article? This is by its own name religious clothing "worn everyday as a marker for special religious status"; not every Mormon is allowed or required to wear it. Nowhere in the article say that included items must be outerwear. You can either add a link (to temple garment or the photograph, either is fine by me. Duke53 | Talk 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But all the ones mentioned are outerwear. Sorry, but mormon temple garments just aren't that important a detail for an overview article. They have their own article, what more do you want? pschemp | talk 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"But all the ones mentioned are outerwear". That's fine but does it not preclude underwear. " what more do you want"? A link to an item / article about religious clothing, which is a separate section in this article. Duke53 | Talk 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Unneccessary detail for an overview article. Get consensus here to add it, otherwise, it stays out. pschemp | talk 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major vandalism undetected

I had to go back several months to restore some text that had been removed without any discussion. Someone censored -- removed -- the sections on sexual display and clothing fetishes. I didn't notice it till now. I'm not sure that I want to spend the time to figure out who did it but ... if you're reading this, and you're not a drive-by vandal, what you did was WRONG. Major changes like that should at least be noted on the talk page, so that other editors can discuss and revert if necessary. Zora 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/o/Talk%7EClothing_1c0b.html"