editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) (01/28/88)
A discussion about the new Startrek series and the mini worn by one of the characters soon resulted in a suggestion that clothing for personnel serving on such a vessel was superfluous and that total nudity would be preferable in that environment. After disposing of minor questions such as "where would they hang their insignia of rank?" it was noted that very seldom did one see photos in National Geographic of people in primitive cultures without a breechcloth. It was suggested that clothing had a protective function without regard to modesty. (We assume that ingestion of the apple rind and of learning the distinction between good and evil had either not yet occurred, or the concept had not yet arrived at that culture.) An assertion that considerations of safety rather than modesty keeps me from working at the kitchen stove or from repairing the steam boiler without at least some covering that could act as a buffer in a dangerous environment was answered with the following note: (I informed my respondent it would be shared with a vast and serious group of superior erudition which would ponder the question.) "Alex: You know, you've touched (in a sense) on a subject that I've often wondered about. I mean, don't you feel awfully >vulnerable< having such a sensitive organ dangling down there without any natural protection? Women's breasts are sensitive, to be sure -- but, I understand, nothing compared to the sensitivity of male genitalia. "This may sound facetious, but it does have a serious intent underneath. File it under trying to understand how the other half feels. (A male friend once asked me what it felt like to menstruate, and I always meant to ask him this question, but never got around to it. Or did he change the subject? Don't quite remember....)" (I wonder if I remembered to tell her that within a short time the discussion would drift and the original question would be unrecognizable.) -- Alex Zell ..ihnp4!chinet!editor I'd rather be on Pictou Island, NS
diaz@aecom.YU.EDU (Dan D) (02/02/88)
In article <2151@chinet.UUCP>, editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) writes: > > [...]clothing for personnel serving on such a vessel was superfluous and > that total nudity would be preferable in that environment. > [...]it was noted that very seldom did one see photos > in National Geographic of people in primitive cultures without a > breechcloth. It was suggested that clothing had a protective function > without regard to modesty. There is good evidence that in appropriate climates, clothing is not necessary. From an evolutionary perspective, I think it likely that the ancestors of man lost their hair before they gained clothing. In many non-Western tropical cultures, clothing is not worn until the child has reached the age of puberty (or has passed through a similar cultural rite of passage). Clothing is a sign of adulthood. -- dn/dx Dan D diaz@aecom.yu.edu Dept. Molecular Biology & Plumbing Ein Stein Call Age of Meddy Sin of Your Shiva You Nee Verse Itty
michaelm@vax.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil) (02/03/88)
In article <1576@aecom.YU.EDU> werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > Being a parasitologist, it would come naturally that I would note >the following that is, as far as I know, unique to humans: > > Humans are the the only animal that eats cooked food. > > (What this means in terms of the carriage rate of intestinal parasites >is enormous - we are probably one of the few non-marine species in which >it does not approach 100%. (Although I should point out that approximately >20-25% of the human species IS infected with Roundworm.) If we could learn how to cook our sex, and have it taste better to boot...! Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation Santa Clara, California {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma} !oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark. But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man. That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely and identically human is likely ever to come that way again. Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1957