3 ms·
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by
by itishappy 2y ago
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world.
Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales.
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
- achierius 2y agoNote that the "wearing flour sacks" was not some perennial tradition of farming families: it was a necessity of the times, i.e. the Great Depression / dust bowl, where many many farmers were forced into destitution.
- itishappy 2y agoI'm sure it's a bit of both. Feed sacks weren't worn by the affluent, but it would have been cheaper to use unpatterned fabrics. People went out of their way to select attractive patterns and match them with each other.
- bluGill 2y agoWith mass production attractive patterns were cheap for the flour companies - they were already pattering the sacs with the brand name so it was almost zero extra cost to put more pattern on the bag. If patterns actually costs them much they wouldn't have done it. People who have a choice between two $1 bags of flour will choose the nicer on for the nicer clothes they can make - but if one bag as $1.05 they would choose the cheaper one.