Clothing is the root of all evil

reply to post by theabsolutetruth



I've never been naked in the snow. But I have been skinny dipping in Lake Tahoe at midnight.
I was much more appreciative of a hot shower than I was of clothing after that.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Well, trust me, in cold places, like where it snows, clothing is ESSENTIAL for survivial, it's part of the essential human requirement for shelter from the elements and warmth. Humanity in general most probably owes it's continued survival and domination above other species to clothing, as well as other factors.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

I've never been naked in the snow. But I have been skinny dipping in Lake Tahoe at midnight.
I was much more appreciative of a hot shower than I was of clothing after that.

Well, then, that tears it!

Hot showers are the root of all evil!

Harte

reply to post by Harte


there may be some who think so!

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by Tsurugi

 

Thank you for actually digesting the OP, and actually attempting to dissect the leaps in logic presented. For presenting an off site link alone I wish I could star you more than once.

Well, it was only Wikipedia. But thanks.

In Posts following my OP I did provide evidence as to why things such as physical appearance, and weaponry would not fall into the "original" envy category.

Well, I did read the whole thread before posting(a practice which I try to adhere to as much as possible). I don't recall you making a point on weapons specifically...but I'm sure you did if you say so.
However, I don't agree with you that physical appearance would not fall into the "original" envy category. And I didn't say that weapons would be envied, I said abilities. I did use spear throwing as the example, but I meant the throwing would be envied, not the spear. Hehe

I do think personal relationships in a tribal setting would not be as much an issue as it may become in modern society, strictly due to the small population and quite possibly the lack of monogamy.

seems to indicate, monogamy was not a strong human trait 2000 years ago, let alone 114,000 years ago.

Yah, monogamy is a cultural twist. What other mammal on this planet practices it? People say swans do, but those aren't mammals. Penguins are strictly monogamous--but only for one year(breeding season)...and still not mammals. There may be a species or two of mammals that actually practices it, but if so it is greatly outnumbered by those that do not. And if you spread out to the rest of the animal kingdom, the ratio gets worse.

Not to say I think we should have harems or anything....I just don't see why there can't be other forms of families. Reference Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for some excellent alternatives to the nuclear family.

However, you're countering only half of my "relationship" argument because you're focusing only on the first example--the girl with the lover with a brother(haha). Monogamy has nothing to do with the second example--the person who becomes envious of the time that their friend spends with other friends. And I only gave those two examples of different relationships resulting in envy, but there are others.


But, I see that you have been tag-teamed by Harte and Hanslune since posting this reply to me, and have conceded the argument. Ah well. If it is true that your goal here was to find out if there were any ATS members remaining who were capable of comprehending an argument, recognizing its weaknesses, and constructing a strategic rebuttal; then I would say you have met your goal.

But now I will never know if I would have passed the test too, dammit
(if it was actually a test, haha)

reply to post by Tsurugi


Weapon systems are addressed in my first post in regards to the Atlatl.
Physical apperiance I suggested would be negated due to a small breeding pool.

I have heard Wolves mate for life. But I never looked into it.
I've only read The Puppet Masters by Heinlein. If you suggest it, I'll look into some more.

Shoot. Wouldn't you concede an argument if you were against Harte and Hanslune?
Granted, I did challenge Harte to participate more fully. I didn't think both would be kind enough to help refute me.
If Byrd posts I can say all 3 of the heavy hitters that I've seen in this forum, politely showed me where I was wrong.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Well done for a successful goal achieved! You stated near the beginning of this thread that your goal was to provoke an intelligent debate using one of your more outlandish theories to see if ATSers would respond logically.

Kudos to you.

Daavin

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


You just want to see some skin, come on admit it...............dying to see flesh.

By your comment of "old and fat should remain clothed at all times" proves you are basically simply wanting to see naked flesh - so get cable.

We wear clothes because I think none of us would get a whole hell of a lot of work done if we all ran around naked.

Also, personally, until it's around 70F+ I get cold.

One last point, from a psychological point of view, clothing is a wall of sorts, it hides from the public your own personal body. We have so little privacy now, wearing clothes except around those we deem worthy of being intimate with makes us different from say dogs who don't care about clothes and will eliminate without care in front of everyone.

Don't worry though, you could get a job with the TSA and see and feel all the flesh you want. You could also enter a profession, like a gynecologist, doctor, nurse etc, as they also get to see naked people.

We are already a physical, don't look beyond the flesh and physical appearance civilization - have gotten to the point where people don't bother to really get to know someone before trying to get intimate.

When I was young and wore a bikini on a beach or short shorts and tube tops,guys would flock from everywhere to "get to know me"................men, by nature's design, get excited when they see flesh - the more the faster they get frisky. My husband at 67 still gets frisky when I simply get out of the shower. God, let me dry off for once

Sex is nice, it's good, but we are already sex obsessed.

Now, I'm not for a black veil but I'm not for running around naked either (except designated places, like nude beaches for adults).

Plain and simple, I've been around many men - the less a woman wears, the more "frisky" men get.

And when watching TV, they always show tons of scantly clad women, many naked, but they rarely show cute, young sexy men naked - front wise.

Even though I'm old, it's still nice seeing the human body (men are more exciting to me).

But in general, and with children around - no clothing is not the root of all evil, it's necessary.

People haven't matured spiritually enough and are still base animal in nature that going without clothes in general would not be a good idea in my own opinion.

The video below, the guard reminds me of the opening poster and I mean this in a funny, light way, no disrespect.



Besides with my big chest and my husband's well endowed parts, not wearing clothing could lend us to getting some injuries and some parts of us are very sensitive to pain or rubbing against say a desk.....ouch!

Would you really want to sit your naked behind down on a chair in a meeting room that another employee sat down on naked ten minutes ago??? Keep in mind some people have like genital warts and all kinds of nasty stuff I wouldn't want to catch.

From a medical point of view, if we all went naked, there would be a increase in the odds of catching someone else's "germs".

No thanks.............and my husband says I still have a nice bod, but you won't ever get to see it.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


Where have I stated "old and fat should remain clothed at all times?"

You trying to link clothing and human sexuality in regards to this thread is very disingenuous and bordering on off topic to the discussion.