h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"""""""I'm wondering if anyone knows at what stage of human history we decided that sex with pre-adolescent girls was a bad thing."""""""""


Care to expand?

I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.

Caractacus

Have the self-respect to say what you want, go for it.

Speaking of monkeys, I see I'm not the only one who has reached the Bonobo Threshold, which is what one reaches when you realise you may as well call someone a moron as say anything intelligent.

F107909?thread=3670237#p42972974



>>
Show me a tribe, either current or historical, that's lived in an area with extremes of temperature who went naked. Then you can say you've disproved the hypothesis that an evolutionary explanation for clothing is that it protects from extreme temperature or weather.
<< Iago

Australian Aboriginal cultures traditionally have worn little clothing even in the hot desert. But they have evolved the pigment and survival strategies to do that (so they don't disprove your theory). I'm curious to know other desert cultures differ because of societal reasons - religion I'll bet, but also civilisation I think, to do with resources and technology.

Xan I think said that people chose clothing once they had less hair and felt the cold. I think it's probably the other way round - that expanding into colder territory equated with the need for clothing, and clothing reduced the need for hair in evolutionary terms. Also other evolutionary adaptations would affect this eg if you can kill large animals then you have skins to make clothing from.



>>Rodenberry's conception of Star Trek is as an atheist society free of the shackles of religion. Infinite diversity in infinite combination not conformity and submission.<< Caractacus

Ah, but the infamous Hoo theorises that the human culture in Star Trek is really a communist state. Does anyone know if Hoo wrote about that in a linkable form?

I'm a newbie and don't know Stanley. We have, it would seem from his postings, little in common.

But given the tone from many of the postings here, it seems strange to single him out as arrogant and smug.

I'm unsubbing from this thread, it isn't an exchange of ideas but an exchange of monologues.

And no Stanley, don't post me a message on my 'Space'..... Like I tell the guys who come to the door, 'No Thanks'.

Cheers anhaga

And, since I've argued as much as I can be bothered, and Stanley is just asking why, why, why like a toddler while refusing to do anything for himself, again like a toddler, I'm unsubbing

Cheers anhaga

And, since I've argued as much as I can be bothered, and Stanley is just asking why, why, why like a toddler while refusing to do anything for himself, again like a toddler, I'm unsubbing.

Sorry kea! It's you I'm thanking. I dunno why I was thinking anhaga

I think I'll take being mistaken for anhaga as a compliment


>>But given the tone from many of the postings here, it seems strange to single him out as arrogant and smug.<<

Eagle, the reason people are being that way is because Stanley is exhibiting troll-like behaviour. Of course trolls have no exclusive claim on arrogance and smugness on h2g2 so you might have to get used to that.

Another thread where narrow Nogoddies keep taking the bait thrown by equally narrow Isgoddies... makes me think you're all Ever So Confident in your beliefs.

You lot really do deserve each other!

... I must say that I didn't read *all* postings ehere because discussions about evolution/creation make me quite mad usually. I am quite convinced that it's all Ponder Stibbon's fault - and the Dean's of course.


To get back to the original topic: I think clothing is both, protection *and* ornamentation. I think also in the start it may have been a way to show you belong to a particular group. This may also have been important at very early stages.
As staded already clothing is very often not covering up private parts but putting an emphasis on it... which is also a kind of 'ornamentation' or rather a statement about 'see how great I am'. I think especially men do it. (thinking of these tribes in some rainforest who stick a something over their penises to make it look much longer and erect).
As humans come from warmer climates originally it seems not very surprising that they covered themselves in fur or whatever when they came farther to the north.
In fact... inventing clothing seems to be quite important to make wandering to colder climates possible at all.
But that's just my thoughts.

>> The emphasis is not about covering up one's natural endowments, it's about projecting an unnatural abundance...<<

The history of the codpiece springs to mind.

Charles the 2nd was famous for wearing them outrageously oversized.
But he was over six feet tall.


~jwf~

>> Show me a tribe, either current or historical, that's lived in an area with extremes of temperature who went naked. <<

Can't show you a whole tribe but there was Mariette Hartley in that Star Trek episode where Spock and Bones go back in time to an ice age on a distant planet. She isn't wearing much under her 'fur' coat as you can see when Spock picks her up and...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFzsDGBphs

The music track on this collage of clips is also rather apropos to Stanley's whirled view.


~jwf~

Or maybe Stanley is under the spell of the Vulcan Matriarch KAPOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEG_qvJP3hg

'Modesty' was created in the same way as PC'ness has been created.

Some people have 'decided' that we should not say certain things in case it offends a certain part of society even if it doesn't but the insipid way it gets into the media with those types moaning it gets into the sub-conscious until it starts to affect how we all react sub-conciously before we check our own minds.

That's right. Modesty is a thing you learn from the people around you. I think the question about 'modesty in the future' is a problem in itself because there certainly won't be a common sense of modesty, like there is none now.

Swedish people don't seem to have a problem with it in saunas etc and of course they wrap up because it's ducking cold up there...and it's useful to have somewhere to put your wallet and keys.

And generally people in the USA are far more scared about seeing breasts for instance that most Europeans.
The sauna-thing shows something different: it ok to be naked around other people in the sauna while it may not be ok to be naked in a restaurant. Modesty depends on the situation. It depends to the set of rules we use to act in our society. The way you act shows which society you belong to and if you stick to it you are safe within that society, it keeps stress away. In a different society there are other rules so you would be an outsider there, or you adapt.
So the sense of modesty shows where you belong and to seperate you from others... and it gives you the chance to look down at people who don't follow the rules. (like knowing what all the knives in an expensive restaurant are for or not knowing it. It's absolutely unimporant for surviving but shows that you belong to a certain group)

Of course the other thing is that one uses clothes to communicate various things: the group you are from: chavs, goths, emos etc, your wealth and also the classic evolutionary reason to attract a mate...even if one is married there is a need to look sexually enticing. Animals uses there fur and feathers etc humans use clothes as well as perfumes and aftershaves.

And of course the large majority of us think our bodies look awful and really don't want to upset other people...and with the levels of obesity around these days...thanks gods for modesty...

The universe is huge. There are more stars in the night sky than there are grains of sand in the beaches of the world!

Yet, nobody on here can tell me what I want to know!

When did early man decide he/she had to cover his/her private parts and why?