a very interesting topic indeed.

now those who spoke of cover-up being civilized, are we truly civilized? what is our definition of civilized?

there are many decent individuals out there who appreciate nudity in art form, could they be linked to be uncivilized?

my thought is that clothings are generally (through human history) for both practical and non-practical purpose. and from one implementation, it evolved some less coverage become more, others more coverage become less.

too add humor to this discussion.............



when it comes to the evolving mindset of humans, even the degree of acceptance of how clothings should be worn varies based on so many factors.

let's take for example, a lady going around in spaghetti-straps and being braless. in some places, this is common in some countries while others could have the lady labelled as slutty, among many other bad words.

basically how far we're offended also depends on our beliefs, how we look at things in life but generally a well-figured nude person is accepted better than those that are not.

talking about ladies clothing. (well, men too) - it went like what you mentioned, in my own words, it's from nudity, partial coverage, full coverage to the max super kau kau until cannot breath (think Victorian, corsets, high hair that can't pass toll booth, basically taking a lot of effort and usually more than 1 person to dress a person up) and going less and less and less (walk around and it's common to see hot girls in shorts and spaghetti strap. )

so if clothing represents being civilized, we actually went to the pinnacle of being civilized and now retrogressing.

it's like putting Angelina Jolie nude vs Roseanne Barr nude vs Margaret Thatcher nude.

i'm sure you guys can visualize that, no need pictars. stopping at the first one would probably give you an erection, or if not something that probes your curiosity. going further could leave the mentally unprepared with a possible nightmare.

perhaps it's there's the nature in human where we naturally know what is nice. perhaps it is what is set by the media / general acceptance?

i don't know, those are just thoughts. looking at paintings from the past, you'll see that nude characters were often portrait in proportion which by today's standard is called FAT, or if not CHUBBY.

but why was it drawn? surely it was because of people's appreciation, the general perception (and appreciation, and acceptance) that time was different.

while this has nothing to do with clothing per se, it has relevance from the view point of acceptance, which I think is possibly relevant to the amount of coverage that we see transpired through the course of humanity.

*pardon my lengthy post, I'm not quite sure if anyone would understand what I'm blabbering about either. *