I would still appreciate a cite that that empirically supports this claim. While I grew up in a society that does make this assumption fairly common it seems to be a claim based on cultural biases.
As someone who has close family ties to Finland it took me a while to get over my American ideas in the sauna, but it also exposed me to the reality that nudity and sexuality are not directly related.
As this is GQ and the OP asked about a scientific explanation, the only claim that seems to meet the intent of the OP and the rules of GQ is that the sexualized representations of nudity is purely an artifact of culture and is not biased on biological or scientific origins.
Cultural production is a social processes, and that has been documented but there have been no cites related to claims about a biological or scientific basis for this cultural standard. The ubiquity of this moral standard in the modern world does not demonstrate any such link.
As so much of explanation these days is biased towards the social-cultural, the answers to this question are likewise.
However, with all of the thousands of independent societies all having shame at nudity (or at least wearing clothes for some reason) only one respondent gives an example (Papua New Guinea) and all Internet sites on the subject have the Papuans dressed
Without a clear exception on a societal level, it seems to me that a biological answer is most likely correct.
Of course there are small subgroups within societies, just as there are groups of people who don’t have sex. But this hardly refutes a biological answer for societies as a whole.that
If you live in a cold climate, then you wear thick clothes out of necessity. But then when you’re someone warm, you don’t. There’s no societal shock at not wearing a parka inside.
The external human sexual organs are kind of a nuisance. The male set flop around uselessly most of the time, the penis being good for little more than the convenient excretion of fluids, the testicles, well, not really good for anything. Breasts are useful for nursing and pleasure, but most of the time they are just in the way. The vuvla is tidy, except when it might be advertising menstruation. So, it kind of makes practical sense to keep these things under control with clothing, which most other animals have little need for, because their junk is mostly arranged more conveniently.
The other difference between humans and most other creatures is estrus. Humans are basically always on, so sex can occur randomly, rather than seasonally. The sexualisation of nudity seems like a logical cultural development where exposure to the cold or sun calls for the body to be covered for a large part of the year. But the progression to the extremes of prudishness found in places like the US and Muslim-dominated countries seems absurd and unhealthy.
Explain Finland, which is not some hunter gather tribe that we can use social biases to discount then. While limited to certain well-defined situations like the sauna there is no issue here. How about in Swedish families where nudity is also commonplace. What about sailing crews in tropical areas, where non-sexual nudity is common away from populated areas and is no issue.
If we don’t discount tribal societies how about complete male nudity being acceptable among the Mursi, Surma, Nuba, Karimojong, Kirdi, and Dinka.
How about the Melanesian cultures where a string tied around the waist is fine for almost all activities? In warm climates in hunter-gatherer cultures nudity seemed to be the rule and until western culture was introduced.
Even in a European context the taboos seem to really rise during the Enlightenment era and later.
The shame at nudity doesn’t appear to be as universal as you are claiming.
At this point in this thread there is zero evidence to suggest a biological basis for this shame. To be scientific a biological claim requires evidence and argumentum ad populum or anecdotes do not rise to that level, especially with the above evidence pointing to the null.
Is it cultural bias if every culture has the same bias?
get back to my basic thesis - one of the major role of rules in society is to ensure order by making its members repress their impulsive primal (selfish) urges. We don’t allow stealing, we encourage sharing, we encourage working together for the common good, we encourage even sacrificing one’s life for the common good.
A prime motivator to encourage “good behaviour” is to make everyone feel ashamed of these “anti-social” urges. Cowardice, greed, jealousy etc. are urges to be ashamed of.
I would suspect, unlike Alessan’s suggestion, it’s not that the visible sex organs are vulnerable so much as they are “on display” as a reminder, and sex is a strong primal urge that causes trouble - so must be hidden.
I suggest it is cultural; perhaps some societies have figured out a cultural context that represses problems with sexual interaction without requiring a cover-up. But it seems to me, most prefer “out of sight out of mind” as a rule.
Yes, some societies in some contexts allow nudity in contexts that are not sexual, like saunas and hot tubs. (Well, maybe just saunas… ) But few such societies are OK with nudity all the time in all settings.
Why do you persist in this argument when it is clearly wrong?
This makes little sense. Once we are aware of the existence of genitalia and what they can be used for, hiding them is a stronger appeal to the primal urge (what you cannot see is more intriguing) than leaving them out. You see 200 naked people in a day and you very quickly lose interest in gazing at everyone’s equipment.
I guess you have to find out for yourself. Grab a towel and go spend a day at one of those nudist enclaves. A full day at least, preferably a weekend or even a week. You will probably find out that nudity is not all that sexy after you get used to it.
because other than telling me it’s wrong, you haven’t made a logical argument why. My point is almost every society that we know about has worn clothing, even when not climactically necessary. The few that don’t, typically lack the resources to produce passable clothing. Are you suggesting it’s my western cultural bias to say so?
Again, since the VAST majority of societies, not just modern society, have used clothing, even in climates where it is clearly irrelevant. Even where it serves no practical purpose (like the excessive codpieces of Papua New Guinea) it is worn. And Margaret Meade also seems to suggest that the men of the tribes she hung out with did not get erections from seeing her clothed and her bits hidden either, so intriguing is equally lame as a reason.
Also, most societies have formalized “marriage” of some form; and strict rules about sex outside of that, except in certain circumstances… just as most instances of group nakedness are in strictly circumscribes social settings - like saunas and topless or nude beaches, or men’s wrestling in Ancient Greece, etc. Almost all societies have some form of formalized marriage and try to restrict activity before this or with someone other than a partner. The logical explanation is the desire to limit reproduction to times when the child would have both parents able to contribute to their needs.
Perhaps an interesting corollary to the question is why in most societies, except in rare circumstances typically ceremonial, does sexual activity seem to happen in private - either away from prying eyes, or at night when others can’t see what they can’t avoid hearing? I don’t recall Margaret or anyone else describing a society where it was normal for the husband or random guy to bend a woman over the nearest bench in the middle of the village and go at it whenever the urge struck them, no matter who was watching. So perhaps we’re not ashamed of nudity, per se, except as it draws attention to sexuality. Many societies allow displays that draw attention to beauty and desirability, make-up, jewelry, shaped clothing, etc. which might encourage attracting a mate - but draw the line a overt exposure of the genitalia as a part of such displays. (Is the codpiece the male equivalent of a padded bra?)
I believe it was “the Naked Ape” where Desmond Morris discusses the evolution of sex and the various reproductive strategies of assorted primates, from the harem to the group model to the pair bonding; and the associated visible or hidden ovulation issues.
And it’s no coincidence that most of these cultures are relatively primitive. It strongly implies that shame of nudity is a societal construct as human societies got more complex/advanced.
There is a nontrivial amount of cultural pollution in this world. Teasing out Western influence (or whatever the original source was) is incredibly difficult.
It is rather evident, though, that humans are inclined toward decoration, which is a trait that reaches beyond humanity, into the broader animal kingdom itself. Thence, most likely, arises clothing; I am going to guess that “shame” is a following effect more than a driver.
A “scientific explanation” in this case might well involve social sciences like psychology or anthropology. I think the OP wanted a scientific explanation as opposed to a pulled-out-of-one’s-ass explanation, of which I could offer several.
I know that’s what the OP wanted. I’m saying that science doesn’t always enter into everything. If there were a scientific explanation there would either be no societies that shunned public nudity or no societies that found it permissible.
H[sub]1[/sub] The alternative hypothesis: This is the research hypothesis, or in your case the claim that there is a biological basis for being ashamed due to nudity.
H[sub]0[/sub] The null hypothesis: The is a statement that there is NO biological basis for being ashamed due to nudity.
In good science H[sub]0[/sub] is the hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. While we don’t have a way to run an experiment in this case, if we could that experiments conclusion should always refer to the null, rejecting or accepting H[sub]0[/sub], the conclusion should not refer to H[sub]1[/sub] in a direct fashion.
Yes many people neglect the null hypothesis, but this is a poor practice and can have adverse effects like in this case. It is considered best to assume that the null hypothesis is correct until proven otherwise. This helps people using the scientific method avoid several cognitive biases.
Even people who are fully honest with the best of intents are masters of self-deception. This is one of the reasons that soft sciences like Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, etc… have serious reproducible problems.
It is simply hard to have a high degree of accuracy and objectivity if you ignore good scientific practices which are intended to protect you from these cognitive biases we all have. In this case you have made no argument to refute the null and you haven’t demonstrated any evidence that points to a biological cause for the behavior.
As your augment fails to assume that the null hypothesis is correct until proven otherwise; and you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that your alternative hypothesis is more correct; the assumption is that null hypothesis is correct.
Confirmation bias or favoring information that confirms your previously existing beliefs or biases is one of the human limitations that really lead to humans adopting the scientific method.
The argument you have made is an Appeal to Popularity, which is also a common thing all of us humans do, especially as we all are subject to confirmation biases.
(Note I have simplified null testing here)
Showing H[sub]1[/sub] is popular simply does not disprove H[sub]0[/sub] and you should, as previously stated, assume the null is true to avoid various cognitive pitfalls.
Perhaps trying to use that method, or if your argument does invalidate the null, share your argument in that context and we are probably more likely to accept your claims.
Its obviously linked to intelligence/consciousness. I’ve read some papers that say it is linked to vulnerability. Vulnerabilities to many things weather, sexual advances, or enemies.
My take is that its a consequence of function. Something hurt you cover it up, one could call it armor. Armor is a image of status, strength, and skill (you needed to make the armor so therefore you can hunt or you can take a carcass and create beauty out of it).
I think clothing just adapted from being a more confortable form of armor. Furthermore it provides an ability for concealment of body and weapons. A naked man has no mystery it is what it is. A clothed man could have a hidden blade or hidden resources on his person. Even the capacity for theft is greater with clothing.
All around it seems to be a more advantageous position than the alternative.
) But few such societies are OK with nudity all the time in all settings.