Fashion Industry and Textile Cuture

[NuTex]

Everyone,
I found the recent commentary in the University of Evansville newspaper, linked from Nude in the Nudes section of the INA home page, about the fashion industry very interesting. In fact, I think there is some truth to it. Though I think more influence rests with our socioeconomic system that maintains the fashion industry but the article is on the right track.

Anyone here share my opinion on this?
Larry

[NuTex]

Everyone,
I found the recent commentary in the University of Evansville newspaper, linked from Nude in the Nudes section of the INA home page, about the fashion industry very interesting. In fact, I think there is some truth to it. Though I think more influence rests with our socioeconomic system that maintains the fashion industry but the article is on the right track.

Anyone here share my opinion on this?
Larry

[NudeAl]

Whoa hang on a sec socioeconomic what the?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Well I don't know if your right but it sure sounds good. Hell I'm not even sure exactly what that means but I bet you're right.

Speak slowly use little words, me no likey big words. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. I know what it means but I hate to strain my brain.

[aunaturelone]

The fashion industry is as old as humanity. Even the most primitive peoples decorate themselves with paints and beads and trinkets. Pierce themselves in the oddest places, compress this part of the anatomy, stretch out that part. Ritual scarifications and tatoos.

All human societies have some decorative clothing even if a few don't wear much or very often. You couldn't have humans beyond the tropics without clothing nor would we have survived the last ice age. Who has the fanciest decorations is part of how we tell who the tribal chief is.

I think that hairlessness took place after we dicovered clothing, as an evolutionary adaptation to new technology. It's much better to wear something else's fur than your own. It allows you to immediately take off the fur when it warms up. and quickly add new fur when it gets cold, thus staying perfectly comfortable over a wide range of temperatures. Naked apes also have the advantage of their skin being comparatively parasite free.

Today's fashion industry (just like the makeup, hair and plastic surgury indrusties) is nothing but the commercialization of the human propensity to decorate oneself - and a lot less painful than pushing a bone through one's nose.

[Hadaka]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
You couldn't have humans beyond the tropics without clothing nor would we have survived the last ice age. Who has the fanciest decorations is part of how we tell who the tribal chief is.

I think that hairlessness took place after we dicovered clothing, as an evolutionary adaptation to new technology. It's much better to wear something else's fur than your own. It allows you to immediately take off the fur when it warms up. and quickly add new fur when it gets cold, thus staying perfectly comfortable over a wide range of temperatures. Naked apes also have the advantage of their skin being comparatively parasite free. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to disagree somewhat strongly with a number of your opinions, aunaturelone.

There is little doubt that humans are a tropical species which developed in Africa. However, your broad statement that "you couldn't have humans beyond the tropics without clothing" is not correct. I come from Australia, which has climate zones from hot, wet tropics and hot, dry deserts to mild and even cool temperate zones. For perhaps as much as 60,000 years before the advent of the world conquering, clothed white race (of which I reluctantly admit to being a part), Aboriginal Australians went nude all over the country, from the tropics in the top end to Tasmania in the south. Well after the white man came, Aboriginal tribes were still living nude all over the country as they had done for millenia. Of course, we whites had to clothe them and change their traditional ways, and (as in Tasmania) exterminate them. Ah, Western civilization triumphs again!

As for becoming hairless after wearing clothes as an adaptation, I disagree vehemently. Hairlessness is an adaptation found in mammals only when the creature concerned lives its life and finds its food in and around water (fresh or salt). Witness the whales and dolphins, and compare the relative hairlessness of hippopotamus with other African mammals. Also note how wallowing animals such as pigs and elephants are less hairy than most. Add to that the unusually thick layer of fat below human skin, the newborn human's dive reflex, and the salt tears we all weep (like seals do), and I think you'll agree there is a reasonable case for humans having evolved naked skin and their upright stance in response to living and foraging in and around lakes, streams, rivers, and the edges of the ocean. When humans moved to colder climates (as in the Ice Age) and wore clothes, the interesting thing to note is not that they became less hairy, but rather more hairy. People of European descent, for example, generally have more body hair than Africans, Asians and Polynesians. I also have an opinion that the main reason that hair grows thickly in the pubic region of adult males and females is to retain the sexually-attractive pheromones which these days are masked by perfumes and de-odourants. This would account for its appearance at puberty, and in our original nude state, strongly signal visually of our sexual maturity.

Sorry if this is a rather long and heavy post, and of course my opinions are open to challenge as well. I completely agree with the fact that decoration is as old as humanity and fancy clothing (even if only worn occasionally) has long been a symbol of power.

Hadaka

[NuTex]

Let me apologize up front for the length of this posting.

Hadaka, I find myself in complete agreement with you. And I see you?re new to the Clothes-free forum. Irassyai-mase. (I hope I wrote that correctly and used it properly).

Aunatural, You are correct that all human societies, ?primitive? and otherwise, have always used body adornments. But that?s not the same as a ?fashion industry?, which involves creation of clothing for the sole purpose of exchanging it for currency and therefore creating profit for the industry owner. I think this is the definition of a ?fashion industry? and it differs from how you used it. Certainly ?primitive? people would at times barter or trade their products, such as beads or clothes made from animal skins, but I don?t believe there is any evidence they produced them for the sole purpose of exchange. I believe this is an important aspect for us to keep in mind.

You mentioned that the ?today's fashion industry? is nothing but the commercialization of the human propensity to decorate oneself?. I have to disagree with the statement ?nothing but?. Yes the fashion industry has commercialized our habit of body decoration but turning body decoration into a commodity has had far reaching ramifications. I?m going to try to keep this brief. I strongly believe the fashion industry is tied closely to our class system and that is in turn closely tied to institutional body shame. These three aspects of our society are so intertwined that they cannot be separated. Ever changing fashion styles serve the purpose of identifying the various classes (class system). In feudal era fashion styles were maintained by laws while today it?s maintained by they're continual change, much like a game where one opponent tries to stay ahead of the other. This is supported by the transnationals that own the various textile mills and store outlets along with the corporate media that work to create a market, establish fashion trends and send the message that nudity is equal to sex (i.e. porn industry, television, music industry, etc?). Finally, there is the institutional body shame as seen in anti-nudity laws, the government (such as the American Representative Mark Foley) and those clergy and theologians that say that social nudity is always sinful.

[Jochanaan]

Here's my alternate creationist viewpoint:

Clothes and decorations were not present at the very beginning, but only when humans chose the path of self-determination. Since that time, as Desmond Ford points out in Bodywatching, most decorations are developed from either a feeling of shame regarding the unadorned body (witness the ritual of scarification, considered necessary for beauty in some primitive cultures) or the search for an ideal (more characteristic of the Greco-Roman and Western cultures). This is an oversimplification, of course, but that's what I brought away from his book. Mr. Ford feels that the latter is more healthy, but as nudists have realized, trying to conform to an ideal is as damaging to the psyche as scarification can be to the body.

Nudism, especially Christian nudism, is among other things a throwing off of the shame that disguises itself as "modesty" and "following fashion."

[NuTex]

Jochanaan,
While I don?t share your creationist view I was pleased to read your posting. I?m a firm believer in an open dialogue of all opinions. Thank you for your participation in this discussion.

May I ask that when you wrote of Desmond Ford did you by chance mean Desmond Morris? If so I?m very familiar with his work. I have to admit though if this was whom you were referring to then I?m a little surprised. His most famous book was The Naked Ape and it concerned specifically evolution.

Continuing on with the assumption you meant Morris, while his work is very good I do disagree with some of his views. In his book Manwatching (which I believe to be the same book as titled Bodywatching, simply reprinted under a different title) he stated that he thought the loincloth would never disappear because he thought it?s needed to regulate sexual signals in groups. A rather odd piece of speculation I think and lacking for any empirical support. Otherwise it?s a very good book. His section on clothing is very good as well as the section on body adornment. I?ve used his books as a resource at times in my writings through the years.

I think you did make a good point about the problems of ?modesty? and ?following fashion? and how that actually is a form of shame. And I to agree that nudism helps to that fight that. I too am a Christian and I find that Christian Naturism does indeed add further support in fighting shame. Please note my last sentence didn?t say that Christianity holds social nudity to be always sinful. I said ?those clergy and theologians that say? it is.
NuTex

[NuTex]

A little follow up on my last posting. I highly recommend the chapter on Body Adornment in Manwatching/ Bodywatching. I just reread the chapter and I found it fascinating. It goes beyond just scarification but so more. One interesting statement he makes is ?make-up = affluence = status?. I highly recommend it.
NuTex

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NuTex:
Jochanaan,
May I ask that when you wrote of Desmond Ford did you by chance mean Desmond Morris? If so I?m very familiar with his work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oops! I did! Thanks for the correction.

Bodywatching is actually a later book than Manwatching, heavily illustrated by major photographers without a lot of text.

I sense that Mr. Morris, like a few academics, has formed his viewpoint from reading and looking at pictures, not actual experience. He certainly doesn't appear free from the "nudity = sex" mindset.

[NuTex]

Jochanaan,
I think you made a good observation when you wrote: "I sense that Mr. Morris, like a few academics, has formed his viewpoint from reading and looking at pictures, not actual experience. He certainly doesn't appear free from the "nudity = sex" mindset."

Very good point.
NuTex

Well guess what you all...

sometimes nudity does equal sex! Actually it does quite often.

Please, if you want nudism not to be sexual them go for it but nudists have no rights to all forms of nudity by any means and they shouldn't have.

[NuTex]

Maybe I should clarify my views on the "nudity = sex" issue. I can't speak of course for others but here's my take on this.

I don't want to give the impression that I believe that nudity cannot be erotic. And I do think that sometimes it's appropriate for nudity to be so. And being nude can be a sensual experience, which is not a bad thing in my opinion.

What I believe is that those that say nudity always equals sex are wrong just as those that say it never does are wrong. By always I mean for all who practice social nudity. If we said it was always sexual then we would fall into the same trap as Rep Foley and those who see kiddie porn in any image of a nude child.

Cyndiann, I think you are correct that we shouldn't try to control the definition of social nudity for other naturists or tell individual naturists what it should mean for them any more than textiles should try to say what it means to us. As naturists we must continue to defend our values while at the same time avoid being simplistic, dogmatic or controlling.

Here is a much simpler way to put it... instead of nudity does not equal sex it should be nudism does not equal sex. Huge difference.

And there are lots of positive forms of nudity that have nothing to do with nudists as well, like nude art and streaking.

[NuTex]

I agree. Nudism does not equal sex might be a more accurate description of what I'm saying. I'll keep that in time next time I use this phrase.

And I agree with you statements about streaking and nude art. I know some naturists who don't view streaking as positive nudity but I don't agree with them on this. I think it can be positive. But that may be better for a topic unto itself.

Very good point cyndiann.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Well guess what you all...

sometimes nudity does equal sex! Actually it does quite often.

Please, if you want nudism not to be sexual them go for it but nudists have no rights to all forms of nudity by any means and they shouldn't have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nudity and sex occur simultaneously very often, and may even be related. Nor am I against erotic nudity; it definitely has its place. But since not all nudity is erotic, I stand by my assertion that nudity does not equal sex, any more than you equal your cousin. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

I agree with Hadaka that the nude human form of either sex certainly has physical features that are instinctively sexually attractive to the opposite sex.

The objection some textiles present to us is: a man's attraction to a young nude female's body is so overpowering, that requiring women to wear clothing most of the time is necessary to preserve social order.

Well, this objection is erroneous for several reasons:

1. Young women are sufficiently close to nude at most beaches as it is, and "social order" seems to be intact dispite their enormous appeal to textile men.

2. While nudists also find young nude women attractive, there is a tendency for one to grow less excited by female nudity through repeated exposure to it. The response to beauty is generally manageable for nudists, tribal groups that live nude continually and health care workers.

3. When textiles express their concerns that it might be dangerous for women and children to be seen naked, they fail to take into account the protection afforded by the group dynamics of social nudism. Informal groups of friends at a nude beach or the more structured societies of non-landed clubs or nudist camps create a protective society that shields women and children from much harassment or even violence that would otherwise occur to solitary nude bathers.