Why Not Nudity?

it probably didn't happen that way. it was probably more about protection than humility or modesty.

I think krumple is warm.

It was likely a an attempt at heat retention. Without clothing homo- would have never left the homeostatic temperature climate of Africa. Genitals lose a lot of heat.

At least you've got your hat.

amen, helps my bald head retain heat

i think in a lot of ways clothes do a disservice to humanity. it creates an unnecessary taboo which only creates more problems.

If everyone was naked, I wouldn't sit down on the metro. I guess I could, but moist towelettes add up and damn this economy...

A
R
Towelettes

Yes, of course it didn't happen suddenly, as we'd all know. It appears, from what can be determined from primative culture studies and digs, that clothing likely started out more so for ritual and class distinction. Of course it would have eventually be realized that protection was improved, and thus spread with the spreading of the Homo genus.

However, I do agree with what I think I sense to be an underlying emotion in the OP, that the major social groups got too carried away with trying to remove the H. sapiens from nature, and putting it as something above nature, and kind of created an unnaturally derived guilt of our natural nature.

I will never forget one of my highscool teachers (who I became very friendly with and visited often for many years afterwards), Mr. Singh's telling us how when he'd first went to the US, he kind of broke out in a cold sweat when seeing those female legs...their covered in India. And, yet, when I went to the Diwali party, I recall getting a bit of feeling when seeing all those open mid-sections and what seemed to be little more than simply bras being worn by those young and older ladies alike. Being accustomed to a thing makes the difference, and that can be experienced by going to visit a naturist facility, or by visiting a small band of primative peoples. Nature is just natural, and there's nothing wrong, shameful, nor indecent about that at all.

if you so much as get within a wrinkle of tabbing me yer krumple, got it

It would, though, add an additional degree of difficulty to the search for the next Food Network star.

i know you are playing around with this response, but i actually want to object to it for a second. i honestly don't think you would act that way. think about it. we touch a lot of stuff with our hands and i just saw an episode of myth busters where they tested how easy it is to spread germs and it was quite surprising. you touch so many things in public places with just your hands and we are fully clothed yet that doesn't seem to bother you. maybe it does but the point is, i think if you were raised in such an environment you wouldn't even of considered it, but since it is something you are not accustomed to, it sounds foreign and you want to try and distance yourself from it.

imagine how many workers at the fast food places you stop off at for lunch have lice in their hair? it's more than you think.

where would we sit in public, fabric covered furniture would be problematic as would leather or pleather

i guess every public seating area would have to be plastic, how you chose to handle your private space would be up to you

I agree clothing was first a way to protect us from the elements and second as way to express ourselves creatively as individuals. Pre-historic humans often decorated their clothing. I think the right clothing on a person is far more sexy than nudity. I took drawing classes for years and sketched many a nude. Few of them would have been considered to have a sexy body. I'm always looking at people from an artistic point of view and there are very few I would prefer naked to clothed. I don't think clothing prevents things like sexual exploitation or rape. Women are raped as frequently in countries like the Congo where they are half naked as they are in countries where they are wrapped up like burritos. Just the thought of seeing someone like Rush Limbaugh in the nude makes me gag.

good points.

i agree about the clothing is sometimes sexier than without. however; this is still conditional and at the same time it might be caused by other psychological aspects which enhance the experience. You know, a sort of whats in the box effect you get when someone hands you a wrapped present. If they just handed you over the thing they got you, it just doesn't have the same effect. Not that a person is a wrapped up gift waiting to be unwrapped but given the right person, i don't think they would be so annoyed by that thought either.

Other taboo , ideas, and primitive necessity or design aside.. There is also a religious meaning behind SOME aspects of dress.

And that is to actually remove, or limit ( well, attempt to ) sexual thought and arousal.
Showing too much skin is 'indecent' . Why? Arouses people. Makes them think of sex and that apparently is a sin. You are supposed to be 'modest' which in my head translates to 'show now signs of being a sexual entity'.




I am not writing this well. I am waiting for my coffee to kick in ..but thats my basic idea.

I agree, i think religion does play a role in this and i think it is unfounded. Why would thinking about sex be a sin? I know what the scripture says but it is completely without basis. I think it causes more harm to call it a sin. It pins people against each other, it makes enemies where there wouldn't normally be any. It causes and pushes people into violence in some cases. Why would thinking about sex be bad? I think in many ways, a person who has a sexual outlet is far healthier and a person who tries to suppress it or is ashamed of it.

Agree with most all of what's been said here.

What I find interesting is the dynamic that was created from first covering ourselves for protection:

There's no interest or fascination for most parts of the body, thus covering them up at times produced no real issue. But because certain parts of our anatomy are inextricably linked to sexuality, covering those made the "occasional" uncovering more interesting; heightening our awareness of that visual element. I believe that over time this snow-balled to the point where what was once common place to see became an object of fascination and even temptation.

Its at this point where religion (and other authority dictums) came onto the scene. Where there was temptation to engage in sexuality that was outside of some "ownership" or marraige ideal, there was likely the connection "Don't tempt by not covering" made.

Just my thoughts. And I feel silly having to cover up, or that this is even an issue.

I think a lot of clothing was simply for protecting skin from the sun.

Try working outdoors for any amount of time without sunscreen. You end up covering yourself from head to foot.

let's all break this taboo. right now. let's do it. let's be naked. together.