Because we keep the clothes we wear ever

Most of the women surveyed said that they were three different sizes of clothes. Photo: Stuart O'Sullivan/Getty

Every woman's wardrobe is active and inactive part. There are clothes that we wear and clothes that are worn. These dresses worn lie dormant, ever hopeful that one day adorn our bodies and fulfill their destiny. Are a burden – wasting valuable space wardrobe – or on rare occasions may also be dangerous to our health. In 2009, Joan Cunnane was found dead after she was crushed under the cases of "new, unworn clothes" that had accumulated in his house [1].

Most of us store our clothes that we wear. A study by Elizabeth Bye and Ellen McKinney found that 85% of women have clothes in their closets that don't fit [2]. Most women who have held three different sizes, with the expectation that their weight could fluctuate. Of these clothes, smaller sizes are required because women are always hopeful. As long as we keep the clothes rail "slim", we have the motivation to change. To ignore them would be an admission of defeat.

Carrie Hertz notes that some people use their clothes to help the "weight management" [3]. Much like a set of bathroom scales, a set of clothes of different sizes allow us to monitor our weight. We can measure the weight loss or increased depending on which pair of jeans fits better.

There are financial reasons for keeping clothes too. Every purchase is an investment. Because we buy our clothes we are aware of their monetary value, and we expect to wear a garment enough to get our money. The value of an object changes depending on whether we classify as a possession or as junk, and so if we discard something we perceive a loss of economic value. By dropping something in the bin, we are declaring that became useless. This is a tacit admission that the purchase was a mistake, and that we have failed as a consumer.

This feeling of failure is compounded by the guilt that comes from creating waste in an environmentally conscious company. Socially responsible seems to limit the trash from clinging to things.

There is an important distinction between "discarding" and "do not keep". Often, we keep the clothes not because the ' estate ' is desirable, but because the rejection is undesirable. We don't need these clothes, but we are afraid not to have them. We fear the possibility of never having "money, time or ability to find a replacement garment that would also" [4].

Of course, we cannot ignore the sentimental reasons for keeping the clothes that we wear. We have a personal connection with many of the garments that we possess. Our cabinets are a collection of dresses, unique to each of us. Saul Cwerner observes that our cabinets express our sense of identity [5]. Evolve over time, which reflects our changing roles and preferences. They are archives of our tastes and experiences. As such, they have personal value that overrides the desire to clean shelves.

These libraries are "imaginary places", store every possibly potential selves "vision" [6]. They preserve ourselves younger, more beautiful and also reflect our aspirations to be more subtle or more secure. If we discard these garments, is like abandoning our dreams or our memories.

If you really have to clear out the closet and throw away that beautiful dress is a bit too tight, we must first "remove meaning from head" [7], and only then we could learn to live without the reassurance of his presence.

You can let go of clothes when the time has passed, or is your wardrobe needs a good killing?

[1] Maycroft, Neil. Not moving things along: hoarding disorder and other matter ambiguous; Journal of consumer behavior, vol. 8 (2009), 354.
[2] Bye, Elizabeth and McKinney, Ellen. Wardrobe dimensions: because we keep clothes that don't fit; Fashion theory, vol 11, Issue 4 (2007), 487
[3] Hertz, Carrie. Costuming potential: Accommodating clothes worn; Museum Anthropology Review, vol. 5, no. 1-2 (2011), 18.
[4] Bye and McKinney, 486.
[5] Cwerner, clothes b. Saul set aside: elements for a sociology of wardrobe; Fashion theory, vol. 5, no. 1 (2001), 89
[6] Bye and McKinney, 496
[7] Ibid. 493.

View the original article here