Clothing - maker or breaker of civilizations?

You know, as a Veeky Forumsggot I've always looked at old photos and wondered why did people wear the clothes they historically did? The clothing was so universal that it left no room for any individualism or attempts of self expression. Have a look at this picture of a busy street in New York. Everyone wears a suit and a hat. Colors are all conservative; blue, gray and brown. Even the children are wearing the same stuff, except for knee high socks.

Why would anyone want to dress like that? Why would you want to wear what everyone else is wearing? What would set you apart? What if you have good hair but can't show it off because you have to wear a hat? What if you are well built but cannot make it seen because everyone's wearing loose fitting suits? For women the situation was eve worse because they couldn't even show off their legs or ass as wearing a dress was the norm.

So that got me thinking - what if that was the point? Intentionally or not, the clothes served as an equalizer. Good looking people were put at a disadvantage whereas the not-so-good-looking were at a relative advantage due to clothing that covered and hid a large group of traits that would be used to consider ones attractiveness.

So why would that be beneficial? Well, as we know West is very strictly monogamous, meaning almost all males get a female partner. Let me remind you that historically that has absolutely not been the case for most of the duration of humankind. There being almost as many fathers as mothers has only become a thing recently in our existence. This is how it relates to clothing:

Other urls found in this thread:

prb.org/pdf05/marriageinarabworld_eng.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I hereby posit that the clothing fashion that evolved in West did so because it acted as an enforcer of monogamy by equalizing males so as to lessen sexual competition and desexualising females so as to lessen the need and want for any sexual competition in the first place. The implication here is that the less there is sexual competition, the stabler a society becomes as males - the primary function of whom it is to procreate - are liberated from having to compete with each other for females and instead their energy and resources go into "higher", more abstract things, such as building a complex house or engineering a nuclear power plant. There seems to be quite some data to support this claim. Sex and Culture is a good research.

From this perspective the current increasing sexualization of everything and the increasingly liberal freedoms for clothing should be worrying, as it is a sign of erosion of the strictly imposed principles that may have been what made the West, or any other great civilization great in the first place. As you become more able to show off your skin, everyone becomes less equal in looks. And this will only lead to sexual competition as the males on the lower scale of attractiveness find it hard to acquire a partner whereas those in the top will find plenty, further ruining what used to be a delicate balance.

Thoughts?

Sorry this came a bit too long.

This is the picture that got me thinking in the first place.

You can barely tell who's athletic and who's not, and this is the beach we're talking about...

I posit that western clothing evolved because europe is cold as fuck in winter

It still is but that doesn't stop us from wearing individual and revealing clothes.

Interesting. Lurking this thread.

Clothing was a marker of status, class, ethnicity, and even religion. Individuality wasn't the point because individuality would mean the above markers would no longer apply, and in historical societies where several legal and cultural privileges were bound to one or more of these categories there would be no point in trying to be unique.

Now that I've actually read your post, I can offer a constructive answer.

>Why would anyone want to dress like that? Why would you want to wear what everyone else is wearing? What would set you apart?

'Individualism' in clothing only became possible after two cultural phenomena: the industrial revolution, which made mass manufacture of affordable clothing possible, and the post-WW2 consumer revolution, which encouraged people to express themselves through buying products and other trinkets that reflect their personality. This was a deliberate psychological tactic that was devised by marketers, and was incredibly successful.

The question you posted above reflects a very post-consumer mindset. People before the postwar period were not nearly as interested in expressing themselves through "stuff" as we are today.

So are you saying all of the people in the picture belonged to the same class?

Or in ?

Well you can't say for sure whether it was all due to marketing or whether marketing merely followed a shift in the general culture.

Besides, this doesn't say anything about clothes becoming increasingly revealing.

>So are you saying all of the people in the picture belonged to the same class?
More or less, give or take a few odd farmers in overalls. That's why they're all congregated on the same street and same beach.

That's also how a lot of restrictive clothing laws worked historically, so that someone of another group, like a Jew or a prostitute, wouldn't be able to mingle secretly with Christians and 'proper' women.

>monogamous society have strick monogamous culture
so surprising

>More or less
Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer.

Just take a look at street pictures of that era. To suggest that they're all from the same class, status, ethnicity and religion is just ludicrous.

Is it also not surprising that monogamous cultures have been more successful than polygamous? Similarly, that the weakening of the culture of monogamy will also weaken the civilization and that this may be exactly what we are observing?

All people should be made wear skintight bodysuits, so that genetic fitness and beauty can be seen at a glance.

Allowing ugly people to hind underneath billowing folds of clothing only hinders sexual selection and degrades the stock of the species

>Sorry that's just not an acceptable answer.
Not my problem of course. But you can look at the OP image and come away with the impression that most men who were dressed in a suit and light hat were in the same socio-economic class, and unlikely to be as different as a wall street banker and a fisherman.

I didn't say they're from the same ethnicity, and religion. I said one or more of these things determined one's status and thus sense of fashion historically speaking.

>To suggest that they're all from the same class, status, ethnicity and religion is just ludicrous.

Why? How many Hindus, Confucians, Eskimos, and Brazilians can you see? Instead you can clearly group most of them as urban, middle class Christians of European descent.

You argue in effect: "everyone wears shoes -> all shoes are identical", which doesn't make any sense. There were subtleties in 19th century dress, and significant class differences expressed through clothing. The fact that you conjectured from glances at old photos shows you have not read deeply enough into the subject.

The reasons for the change in fashion from 1900-2000 are Capitalism, Globalization and automation. In fact, this time scale can be narrowed down further to 1950-2000. In some medieval towns, peasants would be banned from wearing certain clothes because they were the clothes of the aristocracy. Certain pointed shoes were banned, only the nobles were allowed to wear these shoes. In the early 20th century, clothes were still relatively expensive and not mass produced. You would have clothes tailored to fit you. The peasants and nobles wore shoes, but certainly not the same style. The worker and businessman both wore shirts, but certainly not the same style.

The irony of your post is that the supposed "conformists" all worse unique bespoke suits, while the "individuals" now are wearing identical sweatshop products.

Class projections take new forms, although echos still remain in fashion. One example is the City of London's famous "no brown in the town". You can read IB blogs about how junior analysts are banned from wearing pointed shoes, types of brogues, and certain watches -- all reserved for CEOs. There hasn't been an acute change from the medieval mentality, it's simply been subverted by Capitalism.

It's an interesting theory however, you have totally overlooked the two most important causes: Capitalism and Globalization. Since these are two recent phenomenon, you would be trying to induct a general case from one data point and so I don't think using the term "civilisation" in the general sense is particularly wise. I welcome your enthusiasm and I hope you read further into this, and increase your knowledge.

>Bioshock Infinite

>Not my problem of course
Yes it kinda is. As much as a broken argument on an autistic anime forum can be, at least.

You are literally pants on head retarded if you think that people from a city are in the same socio-economic class. This is the fucking New York we're talking about here.

You know I thought about writing a lil bit longer for a response but then I got the idea of just showing you a picture. Take a look at pic related. Poor people in a breadline. There's even some blacks there. Notice anything?

Their clothing is exactly the same as anyone elses.

>I said one or more of these things determined one's status and thus sense of fashion historically speaking.
Historically speaking the most important factor was geography. Religion rarely had much say on clothing besides the usual "no tits and dicks on the streets pls".

Same as before, that has more to do with their geographic location than culture or religion. Besides you wouldn't recognize Brazilians anyway so don't assume shit.

>There were subtleties in 19th century dress
Let me emphasize the word subtleties here.

Of course I'm not implying they all wore the exact same identical clothes. But you cannot deny that despite all the minutiae differences, the clothes are basically the same. Someone outside the Western culture would not tell the suits apart from one another if not for their color, and even that out of only three different colors of various tones.

But I spoke nothing of any "conformists" or of any "individuals". The case I'm trying to have here is in its simplest form sexual clothing versus conservative clothing.

The term civilization is very relevant because although clothing hasn't been part of the picture in the historical context of it all, save for the last centuries, it has still been part of the main subject here which is strict following of nearly puritanical values versus liberal hedonism, of which clothing is just a manifestation of, anyway.

>left no room for any individualism or attempts of self expression.

>Their clothing is exactly the same as anyone elses.

Like the other user said, no they're not. I mean they're the same as everyone else in the breadline, but they're clearly distinct from the mainstreet crowd in the OP image. The hats are different, the suits are ill-fitted, etc. Any one of them walking down the OP street would stand out to everyone else who belongs there, and that was the point.

>Historically speaking the most important factor was geography. Religion rarely had much say on clothing besides the usual "no tits and dicks on the streets pls".
This is incorrect. You should look up the history of sumptuary laws. You're not going to make headway blindly insulting others who clearly studied this subject beyond the five minutes of looking at pictures this thread is based on.

Yeah, just look at these non-monogamous dudes competing with each other through the power of individuality.

>but they're clearly distinct from the mainstreet crowd in the OP image
Don't forget the breadline is about 20 years later than the pic in the OP.

>the suits are ill-fitted
Suits DID become looser.

>Any one of them walking down the OP street would stand out to everyone else who belongs there
Doesn't matter. Yes, they're poor. Yes, their suits are ill fitted. Yes, their suits are trashed and dirty. But that doesn't change the fact they're still suits. Of fucking course you're going to be able to differentiate between some neo aristocrat who gets his suits handed to him every morning fresh after chem by his butler and between someone in a breadline. That doesn't change the fact, however, that they're still wearing fucking suits. Suits with hats. Suits that cover everything, regardless if you're a fat fuck wearing a corset or a sick swole cunt. Which is the point I was trying to make.

My point was never that a hobo was identical to the fucking Rockefellers.

>This is incorrect
No it's fucking not.

>You should look up the history of sumptuary laws
>durr there were some laws in 14th century England that prohibited people with less than X amount of yearly income to wear certain kinds of gems on their clothing
>wow look at all that dictating laid down on people regarding fashion!
This shit is stupid and it's going off topic anyway so I'm gonna disregard it.

Ironically enough I've heard some suggestions that the instability in Islamic world is exactly due to their polygamy, since many males are left without mates. This would also explain why militant Islam is still a thing.

But yeah their clothing is still what I termed as "equalizing". I suppose it's so because the upper classes have their status already at their side, so they keep religiously imposing strict clothing to make sure that looks remain irrelevant.

>degrades stock of the species

they might be shamed into getting into better shape, but that doesn't make their sperm or genes more muscular. . .

>so they keep religiously imposing strict clothing to make sure that looks remain irrelevant.
Okay I admit this came off as too conspiratorial but that was not my intention.

My point is that they've developed their culture which already incorporates strict clothing, so they have no reason to change it. I did not mean that they're actively suppressing liberal clothing because they're afraid all of the six pack sick cunts of the lower classes will suddenly cuck them of their wives.

>That doesn't change the fact, however, that they're still wearing fucking suits. Suits with hats. Suits that cover everything, regardless if you're a fat fuck wearing a corset or a sick swole cunt. Which is the point I was trying to make.

But that's not what the OP was trying to say, which is what most people here are criticizing when they bring up historic fashion customs and laws - the whole 'clothes served as an equalizer' argument, that it was about removing advantages and disadvantages between good looking and ugly people.

None of that explains why the suit came about. If the whole point was uniformity, we may as well have shaved half our heads and wore long Chinese suits like Manchus and achieve the same effect. Instead the suit came about because of what the others have pointed out - as a class marker that the Industrial Revolution and materialism began to mass market. 20th century men didn't wear suits because they didn't want to compete with physically beautiful people. They wore suits because they aspired to higher status, which was marketed to them in the form of a suit based off of earlier upper class fashion.

In fact, suits were regularly marketed BY using physically beautiful models, which would defeat the whole purpose if there were some equalizing element to it. The drive was to be better than your peers, or not left behind by them.

Firstly I am OP. You were talking to me this whole time.

Humbling, huh?

>that it was about removing advantages and disadvantages between good looking and ugly people.
You see the first mistake you did was assume that the process was intentional, conscious. Which it most definitely wasn't.

My point was that this type of clothing came to dominate because the type of culture that endorsed it was necessary for allowing huge numbers of people function properly in a massive civilization.

Now that we see this type of clothing fade away, along with the culture that cultivated it, we may be nearing the end of yet another great civilization. As the culture necessary to its rise erodes away, so will all the systems and number it made possible. Everything complex will simplify and everything numerous will become scarce. It will become impossible to sustain such a number of people in a society where males have to compete for female attention and where a mate is far from guaranteed. The sheer number of partnerless males will by itself be grounds for instability as literally anyone able to give them a cause to fight for along with a hope (72 virgins, anyone?) will be able to take advantage of it.

>They wore suits because they aspired to higher status, which was marketed to them in the form of a suit based off of earlier upper class fashion.
None of that contradicts anything I'm saying.

As I said the clothes merely happened to function as an equalizer. That was not their purpose but they just happened to. Evolution is random, and why should we assume fashion isn't a subject to laws of evolution? A type of clothing that dominates for whatever reason will expand, and if it also happens to fulfill an important function in society, then doubly so.

>so will all the systems and NUMBERS* it made possible
Just to clarify by numbers I meant the scale of everything, sizes and amounts.

>Ironically enough I've heard some suggestions that the instability in Islamic world is exactly due to their polygamy, since many males are left without mates. This would also explain why militant Islam is still a thing.
No, polygamy is such a minor thing in the Islamic world, and the instability in gender dynamics and relationships is entirely economic undercutting tradition and custom. Men and women don't get married not because there's a bunch of women getting gobbled up by polygamists leaving a shortage, but because it's believed marriage should only happen when a man is financially self-sufficient to support a non-working wife, whereas working women do not want to give up their personal incomes for the sake of a non-working husband's pride.

>But yeah their clothing is still what I termed as "equalizing". I suppose it's so because the upper classes have their status already at their side, so they keep religiously imposing strict clothing to make sure that looks remain irrelevant.
The guys pictured are all upper class, and their clothes are purposefully distinct in order to keep out the plebes from their ranks. It doesn't affect the looks-based meat market either, as marriages are hashed out with plenty of trading of bullshots and eventually face-to-face meetings. Even if the boy and girl don't care, the parents will nitpick things like physique and looks to death for the purpose of ensuring healthy grandchildren.

The only time it doesn't matter is when cousins are involved, in which case the whole thing is gated by blood relations and clothing is irrelevant.

>whereas working women do not want to give up their personal incomes for the sake of a non-working husband's pride.
That part is a bit convoluted. Mind elaborating?

As far as I understood what you said I can't see why this would cause any instabilities in gender dynamics. If it's simply men and women not getting married and not polygamy, then why aren't there an equal amount of unmarried men and women?

>the parents will nitpick things like physique and looks to death for the purpose of ensuring healthy grandchildren.
Doesn't status play a bigger role than looks in planned marriages?

Is this photoshopped?
What's wrong with his head and neck?
It's looks about 3 times too big for his body

The Middle East has some of the highest rates of marriage in the world, with some 80 percent of Egyptians being married for example. I'm not sure what you mean about there being some imbalance in the numbers of unmarried men and women. The rates of women getting married at younger ages has dropped severely alongside the rate of young men.

And no, looks are huge deal in arranged marriage. I've seen plenty of doctor's sons get turned down for being short, dark skinned, and in one case harelipped, the poor bastard.

t. son of a Middle Eastern mom who has played matchmaker for almost a hundred couples.

Men started wearing the earliest form of suits because thats what Beau Brummel wore and everyone, rich and poor, wanted to be like him.

He himself wore what he wore because he was broke.

I'm not familiar with the numbers but are you really saying that polygamy plays such a little role it's statistically insignificant?

>I've seen plenty of doctor's sons get turned down for
It is interesting that you said sons instead of daughters or just children, suggesting that despite of what you're trying to say in the abstract, the way you're saying it implies the opposite. That it is the females and their families that get to choose and pick their partners, not the other way around. Implying there exists an imbalance afterall.

Yes I'm being nitpicky, but it is because I find it very hard to believe that the rate of marriage for males and females is equal in the Middle East.

Everything and nothing can be construed as sexual competition.

There are women out there who are sexually attracted to men with intelligence you know, so it's not simply a matter of lessening competition.

For my money it's about Abrahamic religion, and it's fanatical hatred of anything bodily and sexual.

>sexually attracted to men with intelligence you know
...They get wet when you name the first 200 digits of pi by memory?

>I'm not familiar with the numbers but are you really saying that polygamy plays such a little role it's statistically insignificant?
Yes.

>That it is the females and their families that get to choose and pick their partners, not the other way around
Also no. There've been plenty of homely lasses that are still shrews to this day because of similar reasons. I only mentioned boys because my mother was in charge of a lot of boys. She had a partner who did the girls.

>Yes I'm being nitpicky, but it is because I find it very hard to believe that the rate of marriage for males and females is equal in the Middle East.
I don't see why you believe otherwise. When the vast majority of marriages are monogamous in the Middle East, a man not married means a woman also not married.

Some helpful reading, maybe:
prb.org/pdf05/marriageinarabworld_eng.pdf

Rote memorization =/= Intelligence.

Don't be a pedantic nigger.

Wits*

That's the word you were looking for. Wits.

Women are attracted to wits because wits exude confidence and an air of playful superiority. It's not actual intelligence though.

Show me a woman that gets wet at the thought of some fat mouthbreathing autistic savant whispering maths into her ear.

Chad isn't confident. He is a narcissist, it is just that normies give him what he feels he is entitled to so it never causes him any anxiety.

Confidence is the robot who goes to a party knowing full well he will be humiliated. Women are not attracted to men with real struggles, why would they be attracted to losers and failures?

That's called "being in shape"

Bump

bumping this thread for potentially interesting content

better than spam anyway

>tfw the children in those pictures have lived their whole life and are now dead
really makes you think

Bring this back please.

>Ironically enough I've heard some suggestions that the instability in Islamic world is exactly due to their polygamy, since many males are left without mates. This would also explain why militant Islam is still a thing.

Although this is not exactly related to the subject, I believe this is partly the cause of the macho-attitude of many Muslim men and Islam in general.
After all, Islam was first introduced by the elite, not by the poor. So it is to no surprise Islam works mostly in the favor of the upper classes who want to keep their five wives.

We still do that, even body positive and the HTAM movement still glorify and try to make fat appear beautiful. So they're not just saying "Accept our bodies", but they're trying to make them look attractive too. And of course brands have to jump on this train to get sales from fat people. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'd do the same thing in that position.

>It will become impossible to sustain such a number of people in a society where males have to compete for female attention and where a mate is far from guaranteed. The sheer number of partnerless males will by itself be grounds for instability as literally anyone able to give them a cause to fight for along with a hope (72 virgins, anyone?) will be able to take advantage of it.

I agree with you, but the clothing is a symptom, not a cause.
And while clothing is important in attracting females - face and charisma/status is far more important.
Coming from a Veeky Forumsg, attractive people wearing ugly clothes usually becomes the new trend.
Take high cuffed pants which during the 90s was affiliated with nerds, which today are pretty "in".

Could be HGH or him just being really short combined with a small frame.

I wish society was still this homogenous aesthetically. The men looked great and photos don't look like a chaotic collage of bad taste. The same goes for cars and architecture.

I like the hat/braids combo