|Home||Natural Family Living||Big Life Issues||Animal-
|Culture of Love||Solar Culture||Spirituality||Emotion|
Beach baby in birthday suit (pablogv2004, Morguefile)
Dog wearing hat (MikiBrhanu, Morguefile)
Humans in fancy dress (lauramusikanski, Morguefile)
Bronze woman statue (ardelfin, Morguefile)
Silhouette of woman and man (mzacha, Morguefile)
Stone Face (buzzatsea, Morguefile)
Glowing Angel (gariputro, Morguefile)
| Dress Codes
Dress Code of Animals
Nudity is our birthday suit, the basic dress code given by nature and evolution.
We are not born with clothes on.
Nakedness is the dress code of almost all animals. There is no other.
However, some animals use stuff from nature. Hermit crabs use shells. Some insects can cloak or clothe themselves, including the caterpillar's cocoon.
Dress Code of Humans
Humans as animals also have this basic animal dress code.
However, our natural environment is the first modifier of this.
In Africa, due to the hot climate, tribes often do not wear much more.
However, Inuits in the Arctic will wear many layers of warm clothing to survive the extreme cold.
Indeed, the desire to move into new habitats may have driven the invention of clothing, as the technology of clothing meant you did not have to evolve the ability to live there. This is explained more deeply here.
So, the animal in us creates and tweaks our basic dress code.
Then comes the dress code of your culture. This is the human in us influencing the animal.
Originally this was body art or body modifications for spiritual or symbolic or decorative purposes, to better harmonise with nature.
When the environment was too cold, this symbolic dress code was transferred onto clothes. So, clothes had a thermal and a socio-spiritual purpose. See here again.
As cultures became 'civilised', clothing too was greatly affected.
It all became very complex.
We had punks and skinheads and rockers.
We have business and casual.
We have Islam and its controversial female dress code.
And so on.
These sorts of dress codes became far more dominant than the animal dress code. And so social rules and political correctness entered the show.
Birthday Suit Meets 'Civilised' Human
Naked Attraction is a British TV dating show where a contestant chooses a date from a selection of six naked people. There were a lot of complaints about it due to full frontal nudity. The show was effectively being accused of being politically incorrect or socially unacceptable. However, the broadcasting watchdog did not investigate as there was no sex and it was broadcast at a time appropriate for adult audiences. Thankfully, political correctness was defeated.
What happens in the UK culture when nudity happens in everyday life?
(1) The Naked Rambler Stephen Goughkeeps on getting arrested. He has spent over ten years in prison because he is apparently outraging public decency and/or it would disrupt society too much to allow it. Whenever he is released, he tends to immediately get arrested again. Like Naked Attraction, he is not doing anything sexual or harmful, but the cultural rules are not naked-friendly so that he is seen as disrupting social order.
(2) Breasts are a battleground. This can be seen as a battle between man and baby.
On the one hand, as western culture is patriarchal and sexualised, men tend to like women as sex objects. The sexualised/money-making breast is everywhere, as with page 3 models.
On the other hand, the nurturing/breastfeeding breast is to be hidden away and if on public display, often is attacked vehemently.
Progress has been made so that page 3 stuff is no longer politically correct, no longer socially acceptable, and so was discontinued. And breastfeeding in public is slowly becoming more acceptable. These are positive examples of political correctness.
Dress Code & Political Correctness & Sexual Assault
I have already talked about this in Skirting Around. Here are some more thoughts.
SlutWalk formed in response to a Toronto policeman's advice to women students to not dress like sluts, so as to avoid sexual assault - see BBC or Wikipedia (2011). We can surely understand how the use of the word 'slut' sounds derogatory, especially as most prostitutes have been sexually abused. An example of where political correctness helped.
Now, we learn that girls at schools are being shamed as they must dress down to avoid education distractions, whilst the crude behaviour of boys is ignored - see Time (2015). In other words, only the girls are being 'bad', not the boys, which doesn't sound right, does it? Political correctness badly denied.
The Himba are a proud tribe from Namibia, whose women normally wear short skirts and are topless. Men are similar in attire, if not skimpier! The San people or Bushmen of southern Africa are also lightly clothed. The dress seems suitable for a hot climate. We have nearly naked people that are not being sexual. Surely, they are natural? They are not inviting sexual assault.
When I was in Namibia researching the Himba, we asked about a different type of short skirt on the wall of a Himba woman's hut.
If I recall correctly, we learned that this specific type of Himba short skirt invites sexual times with a partner, that she is in the mood.
So, here we have an example of a short skirt that invites sex from a partner, but not rape. Again, sounds natural, cute - and not inviting sexual assault.
To be clear, wearing a short skirt is never asking to be raped.
Now, the men from certain ethnic groups in New Guinea wear a penis sheath called a koteka. In fact it is about all they wear! Apparently, it is not sexual, nor does it convey status. It is just clothing. Imagine going to school or into public in one of these. Would you be called aside for being distracting? Or is that reprimand only for girls? Would you be arrested and imprisoned?
So, what in one culture may be deemed outrageous and scandalous and inappropriate in another can be normal and non-sexual. Imagine visiting a gay bar in only a penis sheath... Does this invite sexual assault? No, of course not, but does it make it more likely? If I am bleeding and go swim near a shark, am I inviting an attack? No, but surely I make it more likely?
Enabled Yet Constrained
Our culture both enables and constrains. In other words, it fulfils our need to be recognised and accepted as part of a group, but also only within certain limits. Obviously, this applies to dress code too. In the tribes of New Guinea, it is socially acceptable and normal to wear penis sheaths. In western culture, we would be locked up.
You might say that political correctness is at play in any group or society. There are boundaries that we must operate within, or else risk censure or ostracisation or even imprisonment and death. Political correctness and social constraints can be helpful or not, can help and/or hinder.
It could also be observed that nature (inner animal) and Spirit (inner angel) can also enable and constrain us, not just our culture (inner human).
I get that face visibility is a complex issue for humans, involving religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions, terrorism and even free will. See here, here.
However, in certain public spaces - like banks, municipal offices, public markets and libraries - I support that the face must be visible from hairline to chin.
For me, this is not a religious issue. It does not apply only to burka and niqab, but also everyday things like: motorcycle helmets, masks worn for festivals (e.g. Halloween), medical face masks, clown make-up, marketing outfits, balaclavas.
This is primarily about public safety, about enabling social communication and constraining terrorism.
Your face clear of things also tends to improve personal safety. Your peripheral vision is unimpeded. This enhanced awareness is vital for detecting and avoiding violence.
Anyway, when humans see auras [see below] again, intentions will be visible no matter what is worn physically. It will be less of an issue.
When humans do have inner and outer peace, this will not be an issue!
Dress Code of Angels
We could say that the physical body is merely clothing worn by our Spirit and Soul. It is slipped into upon incarnating and cast off at death.
Esoteric science also tells us we have various layers of subtle non-physical matter that adorns the Spirit in us, which is the material of the Soul. This is our aura. And these 'clothes' too will tend to dissipate after death.
Our true nature, the classic outfit of the Spirit or Angel-in-us is Light and Love.
So, "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Thus said Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
But this view dissonates with the modern scientific/material view of the universe.
We are angels clad in matter sounds politically incorrect! There is no evidence, or is there?
So, the birth suit of angels is Love-Light. The angel may get clad in soul and physical matter and thus have an aura and a physical body.
Political Correctness [PC1]
Blame or Empowerment? [PC2]
Skirting Around [PC3]
Excessive Political Correctness [PC5]
Sexual Consent & Harassment