Above: The relationship between the frequencies of men’s beards and the width of women’s skirts, charted over time from 1823 to 1970. The graph is taken from a paper published in The American Journal of Sociology. According to The Atlantic: 

Robinson’s theory as to why fashion—both sartorial and hirsute—seems to come in waves is this: Young people tend to eschew the tastes of their elders, but old trends seem new again after a sufficient amount of time has passed. So while long skirts may fall out of favor for one generation, their grandchildren will think they’re the cat’s pajamas.

Above: The relationship between the frequencies of men’s beards and the width of women’s skirts, charted over time from 1823 to 1970. The graph is taken from a paper published in The American Journal of Sociology. According to The Atlantic: 

Robinson’s theory as to why fashion—both sartorial and hirsute—seems to come in waves is this: Young people tend to eschew the tastes of their elders, but old trends seem new again after a sufficient amount of time has passed. So while long skirts may fall out of favor for one generation, their grandchildren will think they’re the cat’s pajamas.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case regarding compensation of steelworkers for time spent donning protective, er, clothing, endeavors to define clothing, unsuccessfully.

JUSTICE ALITO: Why is it that the jacket and the pants in that picture are not clothes? MR. SCHNAPPER: In our view—well, let me—part of it—first of all, they are designed for a protective function, to protect you from catching fire.
JUSTICE ALITO: This is one of the aspects of your argument that seems really puzzling to me. I don’t know when a human being first got the idea of putting on clothing. I think it was one of the main reasons, probably the main reason, was for protection. It’s for protection against the cold, it’s for protection against the sun. It’s for protection against—against thorns. So you want us to hold that items that are worn for purposes of protection are not clothing?

-Pete

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case regarding compensation of steelworkers for time spent donning protective, er, clothing, endeavors to define clothing, unsuccessfully.

JUSTICE ALITO: Why is it that the jacket and the pants in that picture are not clothes?

MR. SCHNAPPER: In our view—well, let me—part of it—first of all, they are designed for a protective function, to protect you from catching fire.

JUSTICE ALITO: This is one of the aspects of your argument that seems really puzzling to me. I don’t know when a human being first got the idea of putting on clothing. I think it was one of the main reasons, probably the main reason, was for protection. It’s for protection against the cold, it’s for protection against the sun. It’s for protection against—against thorns. So you want us to hold that items that are worn for purposes of protection are not clothing?

-Pete