Everyone helps to perpetuate a lot of really unreasonable taboos. One example would be monogamy, most people strive for it when it is not actually what they want, but more what they are told to want. Another example which is even more irrational is CLOTHING. There is no reason for people to wear clothing any more, its no longer the ice age and we aren't going to freeze to death without Calvin Klein. So why are people so afraid of nudity? Are we so programmed as a species that we will never be able to break away from these irrational taboos?

-- Matt (fourteetwo@usa.net), April 13, 2000

Answers

Hehe :-)

I dont think I am about to give up my clothes. I find a lot of protection in them. I was very glad to have them while wilderness camping last week in 30-50 degree weather. Also they are nice to have when I sit on hot leather in the car.

I find I like the ability to present style with clothing and change my styles.

I like the communication clothes provide, my work clothes tell people I am ready for work which puts them at ease and gives them confidence of my intentions. My play clothes communicate to people I am ready for play. My dress clothes communicate my respect for the occasion.

I am a modest person and like the idea of covering myself from all those who I not feel very close to or trust.

I also really enjoy disrobing lovers slowly.

And thats me I will stay dressed I think around most people.

-- Lee (leet@megsinet.net), April 13, 2000.

well, i think for one you should try to be more clear about what it is you dislike with these taboos. for instance, with the clothing, you began your argument with there is no need for clothing anymore. hence, it seemed like you were taking an environmentalist approach of sorts, that people don't need clothing because the environment provides enough, and animals shouldn't be used for such purposes. but then you go on about calvin klein, which leads to a completely different quarrel, which is the commodification of clothing. where clothing no longer has any utilitarian purpose but is rather symbollic of a deformed sense of class status or preference. i can easily agree with your dissaproval for the latter, but the former needs to be worked out more. there are definitely parts of the world where clothing is needed. and not everyone in this world is 'englightened' to know countering points of view. in some tribal areas clothing is seen as cumbersome, but just as likely in other tribal areas clothing and its creation are still essential parts of society. i just think that what was most important about your assessment was that there are elements of clothing which have nothing to do with its utilitarian or psychic-communitarian origins, but have rather become an aspect of materialization. that i find disturbing, but there are just as many points of view to this as there are to anything, and i find it difficult to easily feel that the world supports a dogmatic taboo when it dresses itself every day.

as for the polyamorous thing. i believe it's about choice. we're given roughly a million years of inherited DNA and by no means are we going to magically escape our appetitive desires. but we live in a world and technology driven era where we slowly indulge ourselves in things that have nothing to do with our genetic inheritance and animalistic drives. so, if someone chooses to be polyamorous, i applaud them for being comfortable enough to do that. but if someone is successful at having monogamous relationships, i don't think one has the right to look down upon them for their capacity to adapt their life in a way that is comfortable and compliant with their self. the taboo arises when either side of the debate looks at the other and say such and such is wrong, and for that nobody is above reproach.

-- diego (drafael@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.