Indeed, look at what was fancy dress on 2nd. millennium B.C. Crete:
[Caption: "Serpent Goddess of Crete, 1600 B.C."]
Re: Culturally-defined zones of indecency vs. attractiveness within propriety ;-)
Posted by The Mysterious H.C. on October 28, 1997 at 07:49:35:
In response to Look but don't touch, written by Jessamyn on October 26, 1997 at 13:02:38
] How much of one's body "must" be covered for decency is a totally arbitrary construct of society. Just because certain tribes in Africa wear practically no clothing and certain groups in the frozen north show practically no skin, one is no likelier than the other to be promiscuous. All that matters is a baseline of "decent" behavior, and any slight variation outside of that will seem either prudish or loose to fellow society members.
] Whole books have been written on the "shifting erogenous zone" in fashion, which just means that if fashion decides that something gets covered up, something else must be focused on.
] Western society has always struggled between propriety and the need to advertise. So we construct arbitrary rules about what they're allowed to show, and as long as everybody is following the same set of rules, the message isn't misunderstood. You're just attuned to a different set of rules.
Indeed, look at what was fancy dress on 2nd. millennium B.C. Crete:
[Caption: "Serpent Goddess of Crete, 1600 B.C."]
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
