Can people unlearn their naked shame?, BBC News article.
The article shows that the "shame" can easily be unlearned for many people. Kewl.
One oddity I have to comment on, though.
"... some anthropologists believe our ancestors' unique ability to sweat, along with their upright stance, meant we could cool quicker without fur - prompting the onset of human nudity.
They reckon that evolutionary step towards nudity had huge implications for the human race. With a souped-up cooling system, our ancestors could afford to develop ever-bigger brains - leading to culture, tools, fire, and language."
What a load. Even if there was evidence that superior cooling was needed to make bigger brains (and that bigger brains means bigger intelligence), all that would be needed was for the head to be hairless. Instead the head is the one place we do have lots of hair. Jeez.
Bruce said:
The "hair" theory does sound silly. But the critical part of the article is that the shame of nakedness is entirely a learned response, like a green light means "go" and a red light means "stop" or any other learned and taught response to a stimuli. Pavlov anyone?
Social conventions control the shame of nakedness. Most women would be mortified to walk through the local shopping mall in the swimsuit that they feel perfectly comfortable in at the beach.
Once we stayed at an English beach resort hotel. The swimsuits were like those on any beach anywhere. Yet every woman wore a full length robe while walking from her room to the beach. Why? To conceal something they were going to show anyway? In my opinion, a mere irrational social convention.
-
15 comments:
I think I can feel a hint of irony here...!
Still, it's not really paradoxical. Even when your head is covered, your blood circulation will be able to carry some of the heat away to a place were it can be evacuated, meaning if your head gets hot it might very well be cooled by sweaty feets.
Now of course I'm not advising that you let your head bake in the sun with your feet in an ice bucket — which would be quite impracticable in the UK anyway ;-)
Grandma used to say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a lot is positively lethal."
Now then, if hair on the body acts
like fins on a heat-sink, then those anthropologists' theories just got shot all to hell. (It must be a Monday, right?)
good to have a little padding in case you fall on it as well
The "hair" theory does sound silly. But the critical part of the article is that the shame of nakedness is entirely a learned response, like a green light means "go" and a red light means "stop" or any other learned and taught response to a stimuli. Pavlov anyone?
Social conventions control the shame of nakedness. Most women would be mortified to walk through the local shopping mall in the swimsuit that they feel perfectly comfortable in at the beach.
Once we stayed at an English beach resort hotel. The swimsuits were like those on any beach anywhere. Yet every woman wore a full length robe while walking from her room to the beach. Why? To conceal something they were going to show anyway? In my opinion, a mere irrational social convention.
My verif: "messedf"
How aptlyf saidf!
Your reasoning isn't so perfect, Eo: eliminating the heat involves the whole body surface. So the less hair overall, the better.
Where we humans HAVE kept hair, except the fine one for tactile perception, is usually related to protection. In places where there's near-constantly contact of skin against skin: the axilla and crotch. And over the head, because at that precise place, stopping the direct sun rays is more important than eliminating body heat.
Also the padding issue, yes. Fur acts like an elastic air cushion. Try gently patting your cat or dog, and feel the elasticity under your palm.
Adult pilosity (crotch and axilla) also plays a clear pheromone-diffusion role, therefore sexual-olfactive. In fact, perceiving these smells as "stinky" is also in part socially taught. Not everybody uses soap, even less deodorants, and their widespread use is also quite recent. Came along with indoor plumbing.
It seems even today, we only dislike the pheromones of our own species when they're strong enough to become aware of them. Perhaps because it feels sexually blatant at some level of our social mind...
The male beard, I can't explain as utilitarian. But perhaps similar to the lion's mane, a sexual mark of the male? Cutting the head's hair also isn't universal or timeless, so the beard distinguishes the male, and a long one proves a mature enough mate.
There is one thing, though, that remains an unnerving mystery to me: male-pattern baldness. I mean, it's genetically determined, and can start as early as age 17. Or not at all until past 65. And it seems related to having higher testosterone levels.
So, okay, it can very well be another visual signal, like the silver back of dominant gorillas. But since men in our species were often outside and in the sun, this would have caused an odd vulnerability. Reminding me of dark-maned lions (again): that trait signals that they have higher testosterone and strength, but makes them more mulnerable to the African sun. Maybe there's a biological balance mechanism there which we still haven't discovered...
Oh, and let's not forget the enigma of civilized naked gorillas!
(I mostly wonder what in Hanuman's name the mom is knitting then!)
You have some good points, I guess.
Though it's hard for me to entertain the notion that the smell of sweat is only a negative due to social conditioning. When I happen to stand in line behind somebody who's a stranger to deodorant, it is *revolting*. Truly repellent.
Concerning male pattern baldness, has anyone made a study of the peoples in Africa to see if they suffer from it?
My experience is with Northern hemisphere peoples who don't have to worry about the sun too much. Also, clothes have been around a long time and must affect evolution to a slight degree.
Concerning smells, I was always fascinated by my children when they were very young and their ability to regard all smells with equal curiosity. It was only because we adults displayed disgust at various smells that my children started to associate 'bad' smells with an 'appropriate' response.
I'm pretty sure that this response is learned and not innate, after all, you don't see dogs pulling a disgusted face after sniffing another dogs bottom do you?
WARNING: This comment stinks. If you read on, it's because you're nosy, and the author can't be held liable. This is a medicine/behavioral-related comment.
Whilst on the subject of stench and smell:
I've noticed, that smell of the same origin (eg armpit) has different effects on me:
If it's the smell of a stranger queuing in your vicinity, it's just a revolting Yuck!!
If it's the smell of your beloved spouse - well, doesn't it smell a bit better?
I doubt if this is a socially acquainted feature, or is it? A socially close person smells better, no matter how bad the stench.
Pascal, good evolutionary points! :-)
There is also, as a great "maleness-display": the sexual selection on evolution.
There is the tendency in males of some species to develop traits that are unpractical for the individual's survival. Take the example of many kinds of birds who have incredibly long tales. Those unpractical tails show the male's good health, as they can survive even *despite* of it. So those traits are super-signs of good health, attract females and so contribute to the better spread of the genes of those males.
(The book: Dawkins: The egoist gene. So much fun and knowledge.)
So actually some traits can be bad for the individual, but good for the spread of the gene, so they get transmitted.
Well, I doubt boldness would be the case...But the dark-maned lion could be a good candidate.
"behind somebody who's a stranger to deodorant, it is *revolting*."
In what you describe there's a part of social conditioning, but also a good part of hygienic neglect. People who stink of sweat usually are not just devoid of deodorant, they're also lacking the normal use of washing.
Animals do wash, most of them, one way or another. Vultures, who eat carrions by diving neck-deep, regularly take baths, did you know that? They need to be free of the smell which they seek to detect in their food, anyway.
Our body smells are designed to be "natural" under NORMAL conditions.
Don't you love a good shower after sweating a lot from exercise or heat? Well, that's normal too. Unkempt people are NOT "just being natural". Self-neglect is also a form of social conditioning.
I read that during the Vietnam war, the Reds could spot american soldiers with their noses. Not especially because they never washed, but apparently eating red meat affects the scent of the skin, and to piscivorous VCs it was a strong stink.
Some Amazonian natives will similarly spot a White person from a good distance "from the smell of soap". Themselves, they smell like the forest, olfactively stealthy.
I can medically testify that no skin type is especially odorant when normally maintained with reasonable hygiene. But if people never wash, it can pile up to unbearable levels.
Then again, some people cannot bear even the normal smell of unperfumed clean skin. But pheromones never completely wash off, even after using soap 5 times in a row.
And how could we bear sex if the natural body scents of clean people repelled us? Cleanliness freaks are often frigid (or impotent), disgusted by that "yucky" potential in their own bodies. Read Freud.
Have you even tried what skin tastes like with any aromatic cosmetic on it? Extremely, nauseatingly BITTER.
Lick your wrist half an hour after sampling a perfume you really like, and tell me about it!
I'm socially conditioned like everybody else (well, more along the lines of Lebanese standards, these things vary between countries), but I realize how arbitrary some of it is.
For instance, the French shower once a day, no matter what. A complete utopia with the water shortage we knew during the war... but also to COUNTRYSIDE French people. Let's be honest, people: unless you get yourself dirty or sweaty, it's merely the accustomed luxury of urban people with indoor plumbing, automatically heated water... and no worries about abundant consumption of water. I found out how the French justify the thing being "totally not a hassle": a friend's mother stated that it took 5 minutes between entering the bathroom and exiting it. That includes, according to her, undressing, drying, and dressing again! And she seriously meant it.
Sheesh. From entering the bathroom to exiting, I take that much time to brush my teeth! Even without the asides, a 5' shower to me is nothing more than getting yourself wet under a water jet, a mockery of washing yourself. My quickest showers/baths last 25-30 minutes, "plus tax", which that French city lady found, and I quote, "preposterous".
Well, in wartime Lebanon, if you bothered to heat the water and bathe, you bothered getting well cleaned. :-P
In a sedentary lifestyle and a temperate weather, you can only get bath-warranting dirty in 24 hours if you "do in your undies".
Also, medically, too much cleaning is bad for your skin. You weaken a natural barrier and undermine its protective role.
I realize that, as a doctor, I got the habit of washing hands a lot. But I try to tone it down a bit outside work. Studies have shown that excess of "hygiene" and cleanliness weakens the immune system, which normally receives daily training from exposition to common bacteria. And germophobic people with the compulsive disorder of constantly washing their hands end up damaging their skin something awful.
I wash without fault before and after seeing patients, and for surgery. For the rest, every time, I stop and ask myself, "are they unreasonably dirty?" So at home I wash before eating, after *if* I got food on my hands, and if I know I got something on them that I consider dirty. Which is relative. For example, having earth on your hands is only a problem when you re-enter the house. Soil causes no infections except for a deep AND damaging wound risking Tetanus. Having a pet animal, which is never "sterile-clean", has been proven to boost resistance to infectious diseases as well as dramatically decrease the incidence of asthma in growing children. If you're not allergic, fear not at all.
Moderation in everything. In cleanliness AND in carelessness. These, my friends, are the current international medical standards.
More than a bit outside the original topic, but interesting to all, I believe.
Now, if you'll excuse me, having practically recovered from my flu and repeated chills, I'm off for a long-delayed shower. The balance between clean skin and the risks of catching cold has mercifully shifted.
I keep fighting with some Lebanese mothers who insist on giving Baby the daily bath even with a high fever. As if a quick soaping of the tushie wasn't enough and safe. WHEN SICK, YOU'RE ALREADY INFECTED, SO KEEP WARM!!!
Lebanese women are cleaning freaks. It's educated.
But, as Freud would've said, "Dull women have immaculate houses."
The ideal clean body? Think of a desert island, with many opportunities for makeshift natural soap and available water. Soap and water, and sense, give the ideal balance for any healthy body.
The rest is mere personal choice or habit. Do you know how much damage is made to the planet for producing your cosmetics and shampoos? Sometimes a LOT. And clean water is a luxury which the West wastes inconsiderately, in the name of acustomed abundance. Some things will have to change.
We use half a cubic metre of potable water to wash our car all shiny, while Africans barely have enough murky liquid to drink.
Social conditioning. Sometimes really shameful.
Comments on the rest tomorrow.
Nakedness too has far less medical or biological inconveniences than claimed. All we really need outside keeping warm, is a loincloth for hygiene (or the towel of naturists), and something under our feet for safety.
Oh, and my glasses. I feel naked without my vision glasses. :-)
All we really need outside keeping warm, is a loincloth for hygiene (or the towel of naturists), and something under our feet for safety.
Naturists are disgusting. Besides, in this climate you need clothing most of the time for warmth and in the summer I'd need it in order to avoid spending a fortune on sunscreen.
Clothes also give us pockets. Where are you supposed to carry everything? Carry a backpack even for the little things?
The reason there are nude beaches and nudist retreats is because it shouldn't be forced on everyone else. Besides, most people don't look good naked.
To be frank, my main motivation here is to give pretty young women the freedom to walk around in nothing.
Besides, irrational inhibition and repression is bad by nature, in my view.
The key word there is "irrational." It's just as bad to be in favour of the entire world going nudist as to be against any kind of nudity at all (as in that most recent domai letter you sent us).
I'd be okay if it was only hot young women - they can have the freedom to go around nude. You wouldn't hear me complaining about that. Of course rubbery ones would happening so often they'd probably disrupt my own life.
"It's just as bad to be in favour of the entire world going nudist as to be against any kind of nudity at all"
I don't think so. Because that simply is not gonna happen. Whereas the opposite already has happened, virtually.
A rebellious and very liberated young woman enters a bar stark naked, goes straight to the counter, and asks the barman for a chilled beer.
The barman just stays there looking at her, and doesn't make a move.
«What's the matter, you never seen a naked woman before?»
«Oh sure, lots of times!»
«So what are you waiting for? I ordered a beer.»
«I just want to know where you're carrying your money!»
Post a Comment