- cross-posted to:
- religiouscringe
- cross-posted to:
- religiouscringe
Seriously. The thread has a plot thicker than a soap opera.
You must log in or # to comment.
We feel shame at being naked because people have told us to be ashamed of certain areas of our body. It’s completely learned. Very young children run around without clothes on with no shame because they haven’t learned it yet.
I don’t feel ashamed, but I often feel cold.
I like my nether region to not freeze and fall off.
My youngest thinks it hilarious to be naked 🤷♂️
I remember thinking it was hilarious.
Out of the bath, down the hall, run around the living room screaming “rudie nudie!”
Fitting username
Shhh, you’re ruining the vibe…
Plenty of African tribes run around with their tits out.
They haven’t learned it, and probably never need it either.
I was pretty sure we wear clothes to protect ourselves from the elements. They’re tools. Were tool
monkeysapes.
The bible is the truth because the bible says the bible is the truth, checkmate.
And God declared “Let this cloth cover your shame! Wait… we’re not at that part yet. Here’s a tree that grows food which you cant eat.”
…or maybe because a) you christians told us it was shameful, or b) it gets really fucking cold outside of Africa*.
^*where our species originally came from^
Clothes are tools
Sure, clothes are tools, but where does shame over nudity come from? Like, a hammer is a tool, but I’m not embarrassed about being caught in public without my hanmer.
These could come from selection pressure. In a survival scenario being caught in the rain while nude can lead to death. Minor cuts can become infected and do the same. Both can be mitigated by covering yourself. How much you should cover is situational but wholly forgoing clothes when survival isn’t effectively guaranteed isn’t a smart move.
But how did it get to be so universal, and for so long? As far as I know, virtually every culture has has some kind of clothing, particularly around the genitals of all things, pretty much forever.
To clarify: I’m hypothesizing, I do not know for certain this is how it happened. As for how: There’s two ways that could’ve happened, #1 it developed in an ancestral population to all living groups and they took the trait with them, or #2 the fact Humans are so bad at dealing with exposure imposed this trait on all of us Convergent Evolution style.
You don’t speak for me.
Not only is it colder outside of Africa but it’s colder everywhere, than it was when humans first evolved.
The claim swings from glacial, to interglacial, to temperate. Humans evolved in a temperate period, but since then we’ve had an Ice Age (It was kind of a big thing), and now we are in an interglacial period
By the way, the evolutionary reason is far more interesting. We need to wear clothes in cold weather because we don’t have fur. Why did we evolve to not have fur? Because not having fur allows humans to sweat. Sweating is the most effective way to get rid of excess body heat, far better then panting that many mammals use. This allows humans to run without stopping for much longer than animals, allowing humans to hunt animals by chasing them until they tire out and stop.
Of course, other animals could not evolve sweating because they are unable to use clothes and fire to keep themselves warm without fur.
Don’t some animals sweat & have fur, though (horses for example)? Why did we need to lose our fur to sweat?
Sweat on skin evaporates and cools you down. Sweat on hair just makes the hair wet.
Speaking of which, why do I sweat so much more from my head than the rest of my body?
The first humans were covered in fur. Once we created fire it was common to feel colder when away from the fire. This led to the creation of clothes. Once humans had created clothes to stay warm away from the fire they started shaving their bodies in order to display rock hard muscles to their mates in order to get laid. Over time only the strongest of hairs survived the constant shaving which is why we still have limited and varying degrees of body hair today. It used to be a very politically contentious subject on if it was moral to shave a baby or if you should wait until they were old enough to shave themselves. The down side to waiting for the pro shaving portion of the population was that the babies hair would thicken significantly as they aged if you waited. This would create a major disadvantage to them if they wanted to display as smooth chiseled tone as an adult. It is important to remember that back then adulthood was commonly accepted to start at the age of 12. The anti shaving populace quickly fell out of favor as a significant majority of humans would ultimately end up shaving regardless and it is undeniable that a major evolutionary advantage existed for those who were shaved as babies.
This needs to become part of Wikipedia
Makes me think clothes have been around a hell of a long time. Evolving to walk upright and sweat and such isn’t a recent thing, I don’t think. I wonder if the various Australopithecus got caught up in fashion trends?
I know a lot of Catholic people that don’t believe in the bible shit. Which defeats the purpose of the religion if you ask me.
They still go to church and repeat all the shit they get told to repeat.
They believe there was Jesus and that there’s a god. But that’s about it. Weird to ne, but fine, whatever.
If you really believe in stuff like Adam and Eve, you really need professional help, as you are mentally unstable or just maleducated.
I would get it if they all just openly said they were in it because they want something to belong to or they enjoyed the community. But I grew up in that shit and know they all hate each other, or at least judge the fuck out of and talk tremendous shit about each other.
I’d love to have a place where I can go weekly and see the same folks and bond and fellowship(as the Christian’s say) with my neighbors. But I guess it’s hard to do that when there isn’t the threat of damnation for not attending
I’m lucky my DnD group doesn’t need the threat of damnation for not attending
Depends on the DnD group
Yup, that’s my point
Hey, if your religion has a bunch of stupid shit, but you practice it without believing the stupid shit…sounds like a win to me. Most of us would be better off if more Christians were like that.
Depends on what part you practice. If it’s the wrong part, you get MAGA people.
Which part of the Bible gets you MAGA?
The killing of enemies part, for one.
I know a lot of Catholic people that don’t believe in the bible shit. Which defeats the purpose of the religion if you ask me.
Actually, this is the normal state of things. The old testament especially was originally written in a sort of literary mode. It’s meant to be interpreted in a sort of metaphorical sense, not taken as a literal account of events. To quote from this video by someone with a background in religious studies:
The Bible is a collection of documents, written in many different literary genres, edited over a long period of time, whose main purpose is to make theological points, not to serve as a record of literal history.
This other video from the same creator, particularly the final section on “genre”, is also good. It explains how the bible was written in a literary mode and not in the way that a historical document attempting to describe events literally would have been written.
The idea of interpreting the bible as telling literal events is a comparatively recent event. In ancient times, people probably would have been confused at the idea that some people today take it literally.
My understanding is a good portion was intended originally to unify North and South Judah politically against the threats from neighboring nations. And so much of the historical bits about the Exodus, various kings and all that, are basically fabricated history, according to more recent archeological research.
The Catholics mostly just don’t want to talk to you about it and have catechism class all over again so they blow you off.
Are you an elected representative, or just another weirdo?
Trust me, I don’t want to hear their shitty fantasy stories either.
So are you asking them about it or are you just walking around in your daily life with a rich fantasy story about what’s going on in people’s heads?
I have relatives. Is this difficult to comprehend for you? You have no issues imagining a a big man in the sky, but having carholic relatives and being raised in a catholic country is out of bounds?
Did anyone else see Gen 3 and think, “Hoenn?”
Immediately
Glad to know that Ruby/Sapphire is indeed canon to all later Pokémon games. I’d been worried about that.
Lol it’s a great morning to read this. Last night in a dream I was applying for a loan “as the nature intended”
There is nothing natural about loans though.
Hahaha it’s the grown up version of going to school naked
Lmao yeah I guess. Being in middle of car leasing and mortgage is stressful
Best wishes
Monkeys don’t wear pants. Boom. Checkmate, Darwin
I think you’ll find that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor - an ape who wore sweatpants. Some of these apes evolved into suit-wearing bankers and some evolved into monkeys who gave up on clothes all together
The lesser known Hominidae Comfortablis.
Clearly our common ancestors had sweater material skin. We just evolved to take it off.
One nation in the Pacific Rim (I forget which) was ashamed of their mostly naked primitive peoples. (Their men wore penis-horns.) So Levi-Strauss provided them with a bunch of modern clothes to wear, which they liked… for a while.
Neither Levi nor the government provided the trobe with modern laundering, and as a result, the whole tribe broke out in an epidemic of skin rashes. it was super unpleasant, and everyone learned the hard way going regimental is better than letting your underwear get too dirty. Without modern water and power it’s good to get used to a brisk wind between your nethers.
All the Levi-Strauss clothes were mostly discarded. Some was turned into furniture or carrying sachels. The tribe still goes around with their penis horns and other bits flapping about.
@uriel238 @magnolia_mayhem
Sounds like New Guinea but I haven’t ever heard the Levi jeans angle.
Omniscient Yaweh has a very poor understanding of cause and effect in Genesis.
It’s not the Tree of Knowledge as many people think, it’s the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Meaning that yes, he told Adam and Eve not to eat that fruit, but he also didn’t give them the capacity to learn right from wrong, so why would they do what he said?
@FlyingSquid @magnolia_mayhem
Turns out he was lying anyway & the ‘deceptive’ serpent was telling the truth.I love this detail. It’s one of my favorite go-tos for the OT.
Plot so thick, you could stand on it!
I feel like if a lot of animals had the intellectual capacity to make and wear clothes they absolutely would.
And god said “evolve!”.
I’d prefer not to give the algorithms any more reason to push such religious groups. Such as “user @magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world likes this group and your other interests are similar”
Lemmy doesn’t make money from engagement. There are no engagement algorithms here.
there’s no engagement algorithms here so far
There are definitely engagement algorithms. That’s what active is unless I’m misreading.
And Lenny makes money from people liking a server and donating. Which comes from engagement.
ahh, Jewish mythology brainwashing idiots for thousands of years
