Indeed, bathroom functions were apparently responsible for the fact that hose (for both men and women) and breeches (for men) were originally made separately for each leg and did not cover the crotch, much as cowboy chaps are today. I suspect this is why we still refer to pants (a plural term) as “a pair” even though a modern “pair of pants” is actually a unitary item. Of course, as men’s tunics became shorter (becoming the doublet of the Renaissance), the open crotch needed to be covered, which led to the creation of the codpiece — a fashion statement that was, thankfully, short-lived.

Meanwhile, women’s dresses likewise evolved, developing hoops, bustles, corsets, etc., to emphasize various “ideal” forms of the female shape — ideals that, as with men, changed over time (and continue to do so).

For more information on this topic, just google any of the clothing terms mentioned above.

What does it all mean?

But then you asked: .

Why do girls wear dresses but not boys? Is it totally happenstance or is there something deep-rooted in our biology that pushes it that way?

No, culture doesn’t get written on a completely blank slate. But consider:

1. In Culture A, women wear skirts that expose their legs and men wear pants.

2. In Culture B, women always wear pants and never skirts. Men also wear pants.

3. in Culture C, men wear short skirts that expose their legs and women wear long skirts that cover their legs. Nobody wears pants, though they might wear socks or stockings.

All 3 cultures are located in temperate climates that experience a wide range of weather conditions. Since the biology is the same in all 3 cultures, how could there be a biological explanation that is more salient or “deep-rooted” than historical/cultural explanations?

Nikolaus’ story is another example of the seductiveness of “because.”

women were sheltered due to their importance as mothers, and as such took on the roles of raising the children while the men hunted and farmed to provide for the family.

OK, I’ll grant that hunting and warfare are male occupations pretty universally. But historically only very very wealthy women have been “sheltered” from food-gathering and agricultural work.

pants were much more practical than skirts for hunting and farming as they provided protection from thorns, poisonous plants and insects, as well as from the effects of cold.

Tell that to the ancient Romans, the Scots and the Bhutanese.

I’ll grant that there’s a deep-rooted biological reason for horseback riders of whatever sex to wear trousers, with or without an overskirt. But why ride the horse instead of harnessing it to a chariot?

I don’t believe that the gender divide in American culture is written on a blank slate. If I didn’t make it clear, my suggestion in the “epilogue” of the post focused on a faux explanation of the gender divide in dress wearing in American culture.

If you arguing the first alternative, you got a lot of ’splainin’ to do, starting with why salwar-kameez-wearing cultures don’t seem to have this mental module. If the second, then it seems that cultural/historical explanations would probably provide a better explanation for a behavior that is culturally determined, and which depends on a relatively recent technological innovation (tailoring).

I believe that girls wear dresses to display their legs in order to convince potential mates that the girls are biologically fit.

Good lord, how did we manage to survive and reproduce all those centuries when a glimpse of female stocking was looked upon as something shocking?

And what about all those pinup boys of Western art, in their short come-hither tunics and sexy tight hose?