When and why did human body censorship begin?

[brainstorm]

I think boteman refers to material traces - we know tools from archeological findings, that gives us relatively good idea about what our ancestors could do. And in this context I don't read "needle" as the tool exactly identical to the ones we use today, but as a tool that serves the same purpose - helps to combine two pieces of material/skin/whatever.

Tools made out of bone and wood decay through time. I think even when material traces aren't found, it doesn't take much more than common sense to realize that people may have figured out how to poke holes in animal hides and tie them together with some kind of rope in many different small "tribes" throughout prehistory. The same people might have gone naked when weather permitted, out of comfort or whatever. Why bother with making clothes for warm weather if you don't have to worry about anything bad happening if you don't?

 

[LeroyLaRey]

body censorship is a default form of having proof of social status. clothes are a form of jewelry that can only be possessed by people who can keep them from being stolen. slaves and crazy people go naked. Someone of "worth" has a badge that warns rapists of a big family with short tempers & hairy backs. like sports logos, combat fatigues, national flags, tribal tattoos, or gold worn in public. Before the industrial revolution, rich people wore really fancy clothes, because it was proof that they commanded the resources to use other peoples time for their personal vanity. Rich Viking women went bare breasted to prove they had defense against groupers (mess w/ me & you mess w/ the king). Madonna did it to show the power of her fan base. A person needs social approval to go naked & not be derided as a beggar, babies have their moms, hookers have their pimps, swimmers have their teams.

oh, & they keep you warm too (clothes do).

 

[vibjwb]

Yes Leroylarey I think you are right. Clothing started as jewelry (ornamentation).
Needles have nothing to do with it.
The question was censorship of the human body and when did that start.
My first thought is organized religion. I may be wrong but I have been wrong before.

 

[Integral]

...
And prior to that in the 1700s and 1800s in the fledgling United States it was commonplace for farmers to skinnydip in the pond or river. This practice faded in the 1970s and 1980s with urban sprawl encroaching on skinnydipping holes here and there.

...

While president, John Quincy Adams took a daily swim in the Potomac in the nude.

source: Birth of the Modern; World society 1815-1830 by Paul Johnson

 

[Integral]

I once read that humans wearing clothing started out as ornamentation for the body.

This has to be highly location depentend. In the cold northern regions a stinky poorly tanned animal skin was not very ornamental but it was undoubtly the first clothing.

 

[Phrak]

When I find the need for a new hide I don't waste an afternoon fashioning a needle or use an auger or awl to put it together. I can put holes wherever I want by smashing it between two rocks.

Somehow I don't think archeologist could managed to distinguish a rock, once used for fabricating holes, from many other rocks.

 

[LeroyLaRey]

the censorship comes from not showing evidence of tribal or group affiliations. like if you don't wear the right colors, or if you wear the wrong ones, you risk getting whacked by whoever owns the turf. tattoos and scars are ok if it's not cold, or if the right to wear socially empowering emblems is permanent, like inherited. People say "eww, a philistine" if you don't deserve the badge, they take it away & presto ... you're censored. Ide Amine dressed his family in the Royal Stewart tartan & Queen Elizabeth & co was insulted. that may have been his intention.

the question is a contemporary perception, the censorship doesn't result from covering up the body, so much as social control of the individual. clothes are a way to say "you belong to us"

 

[vibjwb]

Yes Leroylarey I believe you are right.
As in tribal / religion

 

[turbo]

There have been/are many places in the world in which female breasts are not required to be covered (like Farmington Maine yesterday, if you happen to follow the news) but are generally covered due to social convention. Google on "Ashcroft" and "breasts" for some real prudery, or take a gander at what Virginia's AG wants to do to the state seal. Oh! Children might see!

As for the covering/protecting of the nether regions, who knows? If the inhabitants of the African tropical forests were constructing coverings of broad leaves hundreds of thousands of years ago, there would be no way for us to know that. Such garments would have been discarded and rotted away regularly with no trace.

 

[Integral]

When I find the need for a new hide I don't waste an afternoon fashioning a needle or use an auger or awl to put it together. I can put holes wherever I want by smashing it between two rocks.

Somehow I don't think archeologist could managed to distinguish a rock, once used for fabricating holes, from many other rocks.

most hides come ready made with holes in convenient locations.

The Polynesian culture felt little need for clothing other then for decorative purposes.

As in so many things we must be very careful when attempting to generalize.

 

[LeroyLaRey]

Hi vibjwb: religion works too, to get favors & respect from ancestors and nature spirits like wearing lion skins & carrying bull horns to make magical claims, to impress & intimidate social or territorial rivals. it's still easy to tell a Crip from a Shriner when they're decked out, so the tradition goes on.

 

[Integral]

It is one thing to ask WHEN humans began to cover there bodies, it is another thing entirely to ask WHY they covered their bodies. The first can be addressed by archaeologists with hard evidence, the answer to second can only be speculation. Recall that speculation is not allowed here. Be very careful in your discussion of WHY.

 

[skeptic2]

I think we agree religion was a major influence in spreading the the nudity taboo, but why?

Generally we talk about censorship as a legal or religious force that denies people materials they want. The nudity taboo is different. In many societies there wouldn't have to be a law against nudity to make people ashamed to appear nude. I don't think it's a matter of clothes implying status either as many people, at least in the U.S., wear old clothes around the house in spite of their status.

 

[vibjwb]

This is some interesting information about clothing.

http://www.mahmoodgroup.com/functionofclothing/index.html

http://www.mahmoodgroup.com/clothing-history/index.html

 

[DaveC426913]

The theory that clothing started out as ornamentation does not explain why clothing for the most part covers the genitals.

I think that clothing started as a way of hiding sexual readiness. I'm pretty sure that sex itself was a private activity from early in mankind's history, so sexual signals would likewise become private too.

As humans formed closer-knit social groups and their activities became specialized and interdependent, it became important to be judged on one's skills and vocation.

So, clothing says: "Look at me for what I can do for the tribe, not for whether I'm ready to mate."

 

[Antiphon]

Davec426913 hit it. You have to think of it as a dynamic event. It's not covering the genitals so much as the *aroused* genitals. Imagine how awkward it would be for a man if he started pointing north when the neighbor's wife or daughters went walking by. It keeps social contacts unencumbered by physiological reflexes.

A side note- there is far too great a tendency for the modern mind to assign political meaning to things-"clothing was invented by group x to keep group y in it's place" etc. This is what happens when traditional religion is displaced by secular "theories" of human interaction. For the religious, it makes sense that the fig leaf was ordained by a higher power because that's the stock explanation for things that are not well understood. So it is for the secular replacement of religion by the political left of the last couple hundred years. Theis stock explanations are based on the narrow cocepts of class struggle.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[skeptic2]

Davec426913 hit it. You have to think of it as a dynamic event. It's not covering the genitals so much as the *aroused* genitals. Imagine how awkward it would be for a man if he started pointing north when the neighbor's wife or daughters went walking by. It keeps social contacts unencumbered by physiological reflexes.

I think this is a misconception. If nudity were common, this would be very rare. It certainly is not reported of societies where nudity is common.

 

[LeroyLaRey]

indeed some cultures in Borneo & South America wear reed sheaths as casual wear for the appearance of an erection, and it's really bad form there to be seen in public without one. This is called 1stworldpromorphism.