Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Peterkin last won the day on August 12

Peterkin had the most liked content!


About Peterkin

  • Birthday 05/22/1947

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    aesthetics, animals, anthropology, art, consciousness, craft, ecology, ethics, extraterrestrial life, forensics, gardening, literature, medicine, psychology, sociology
  • College Major/Degree
    C College Of Medical Laboratory Technologists Of Ontario; CSLT registration; extra courses at UofT,
  • Favorite Area of Science
    medicine, ecology, psychology
  • Biography
    long, long ago, in a country far, far away.... meh, I've had six lives since then, none of them particularly interesting
  • Occupation
    semi-extinct scribbler

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Peterkin's Achievements


Primate (9/13)



  1. Their 'culture' consisted of wild animals who couldn't care less whether anyone is wearing anything, as long its not their skin, with an occasional visit from God, who didn't want them to know they were naked. It was them covering up that tipped Him off to their having eaten of the forbidden fruit, which was the knowledge of good and evil. And it was forbidden because that knowledge make them godlike. Then they started procreating a culture, all of whose members, from infancy on, were taught to feel guilty, frightened and ashamed.
  2. It makes not a damned bit of difference whether she's naked in a nudist colony or wearing a long white gown at Russian court ball, or a pin-striped suit at a Wall Street board meeting - you're supposed to control yourself among all the women dressed in the normal costume of their normal habitat. If that fine bosom is exposed in the boardroom, that would be as provocative as if a nudist walked out on the beach in a long white gown. It's the exception you notice, not the norm. No, I'm not aware that Middle Eastern women of the time indulged in the shaving of limbs. They may have, but it's not relevant here. Isaiah quite clearly said that her fine clothing would be stripped from the princess, in public, as part of the humiliation ritual inflicted on a noble captive in a brutal war. That's not a nit; it's a flea egg; whole different species. It's a reference to Mother Zion, who brought forth Israel, not to a woman; the breast is nourishing, not lust-inducing. You'd have done better with Solomon - but those lust-inducing breasts are compared to gazelles or hills of moonlit barley or some silly poetical metaphor like that. Supposed.... by some. It's a bunch of legends, dire predictions and curses, nationalistic jingo, retroactive predictions and instructions for how to pamper the priestly caste and serve the landowners. And some really terrible examples of how to behave when you're a guest in a foreign country. What would it be an allegory for? It's perfectly believable. How many men have killed a rival and taken his wife? Another day, another Claudius.... They're stories and legends from a long cultural tradition: some based on real events, some wholesale fiction, some carried over from other tribes' stories, some old and retold and embroidered over time. Like the one about Abraham and Sarah and the badger game. That's recycled; the second time, she'd be about 90 years old when the king of someplace fell head-over-heels. (too late at night to look it up) The stories accrued and evolved over centuries, maybe a millennium, largely without documentation. The New Testament is an entirely different matter. Those stories were fresh-minted by the chroniclers of a religion in the process of being invented. They are purposeful and directed, written in the space of a few years, then Paul's self-important correspondence, which isn't part of the story, as he wasn't even there, and the ravings of a much later mushroom-head named John and the fake bits that were added by Roman clerics another three centuries on. Is there some point in posting enormous walls of biblical text?
  3. Shame! I hear it makes excellent said leaven to bloat your garden produce.
  4. Sure, but they're not unique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil Modern brides are still doing it! And of course all the various religiously mandated head-coverings for both men and women - you'd think gods just don't like looking down on human hair.
  5. Okay. I didn't realize that was the central issue of nudity. I didn't cite anything biblical about breasts; in fact there are very few mentions of any kind of undress, except the explicitly sexual ones I mentioned and the covering of Noah's genitals. The comments about toplessness in the desert in general and ancient Israel in particular was an opinion, not a shot on goal. The covering of Adam and Eve's nakedness with fig leaves is not at all clear as to extent, but very clear on the shame of 'nakedness'; the religious painters all agreed on genitals only. Later, God makes them leather tunics, which would cover both of them from shoulders to knees. Modern Christians, even the most prudish don't have a problem with men's chests but do with women's, because they consider the female breast sexual, rather than nourishing. Extreme Protestants are terrified of anything sexual, especially female sexuality. Solomon liked them - or whoever wrote those songs; much of it seem in a female voice. Lots of pastoral imagery, too, which doesn't seem the obvious choice for a king. The early Christians made a great to-do about the "image of God" question, whether it was a physical likeness or a spiritual one; whether the human body was sacred or profane. By the middle ages, they seem to have settled on preserving the "mystery of the body" for holy matrimony. But they had communal baths - off an on, place to place, co-ed or segregated or brothel - from the advent of the Roman empire into Europe until the Reformation. Different mores for different cultures, classes and periods, as well as body parts and degree and occasion of undress.
  6. Must have been a lot of sunburned women in those days. That doesn't seem to include Judea; i.e. bible-country. Isaiah was pretty clear about what it means to have your head and legs uncovered in public: it's a degradation reserved for captured slave women. He didn't mention breasts. In fact, nobody in the Bible talked about breasts, it was genitals they worried about, and menstruation, and incest. Jesus didn't seem to mention how to dress - other not to worry about it, because lilies don't need clothes. His logic was a little eccentric sometimes. Paul did mention modesty, but only the sense of not showing off or drawing attention to oneself. Christianity only began to object universally and vehemently after the Reformation - though some popes and monastic big-wigs were more prudish than others. Of course, that's pretty much all pornographic and takes place in the bedchamber. But his mother had some rotten luck, when Kind David caught an accidental glimpse of her in the bath, had her husband murdered, married her whether she liked it or not, and got her first baby killed by God in revenge for his wrongdoing. I doubt he'd have gone mad with lust if he was accustomed to seeing her topless. Yes, people have and did have some pretty weird notions about the human body. You know that was pornographic, right? Not respectable women in public, but a particularly self-indulgent king's harem at home. His mother's story was lesson in humility from the prophet kidnapped
  7. There is no single or monolithic Christian tradition. Jesus had very little to say about modesty or chastity - in fact, I can't member a single sermon where those things featured. In Rome, both the costumes and customs were different from the Levant, where a number of Christian sects all went by different interpretations of scripture. The Romanized Christian church made further adjustments in each of their conquered territories, in accordance with local mores. After the fall of the empire, Eastern and Western Catholicism were split and later, the Reformation fundamentalist factions that were far more prohibitive - and misogynist. The whole modestly fetish comes out of a misreading of one of Paul's many, many instructions regarding methods of worship. He was persuading not to show off wealth and status. It wasn't even about specific naughty parts.
  8. Did they? I don't recall any biblical references. Lots of bared breasts in Renaissance art - from a period in Europe when it certainly would have been shocking if a real woman walked down the street topless, but they would most likely feed their babies, under a cloak or veil, wherever they happened to be. Different mores applied then, as now, to different forms and degrees of exposure for different people. In biblical times, slave women may have been lightly or selectively covered, and dancing girls, concubines and harlots might wear very little, but 'respectable' women were supposed to cover themselves, particularly their hair and thighs, which the prophets found most provocative. Besides, desert-dwellers cover every inch of skin they can, to protect it from the scorching sun. But the OT god's peculiar problem seemed to be with uncovering people for the purpose of intercourse; all of Leviticus 18 is about carnal knowledge, with a long preamble about the nakedness of close kin, then more prohibitions about sex outside the home. The onus is on the one who sees the body parts, not on the owner of the parts. Curiously, the Noah-Ham story predates the commandments, so the proscription abut patriarch's genitalia must be coming from an older culture. That wasn't a huge effort, but farther from zero than Doctor Derp's efforts to make his case.
  9. Oh, that's all right then. A lot of issues will have been decided by then.
  10. So, have they? By now, there should be an ordinary Sumatran tiger mother with a couple of bouncing Tasmanian cubs at her teats. Perhaps when they're old enough, they could be released into the wild to find mates. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/02/study-suggests-tasmanian-tiger-survived-into-the-21st-century/
  11. Speaking of, I notice you haven't refuted my biblical references. Ooooh! Direct hit! On the latrines. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to serious numbers. Not a lot to do with nudity, nakedness or the uncovering of limbs, but at least its contextually void.
  12. Normalized? What options were available? But that's nothing to do with nudity. Nursing mothers are not nude or naked; they have one uncovered breast concealed by a baby's head. Nothing extreme about that! Sounds a like a self-fulfilling necessity. Anyway, they didn't marry those foreign captured women; they just used them as servants and whatever. But they had practised polygamy long before the wars, or the establishment of Israel. Read Genesis 29-30, where Jacob marries two of his cousins and also has children by both of their maids. But he never went outside the tent without his loincloth.
  13. Have you counted the ants? There are lots now, but there were way more - the ant are working their way up the evolutionary chain. Or maybe a lot of pigeons and humans have no souls.
  14. What utter balderdash! Adam and Eve were not showing off - who was around to envy them? They didn't know that God had a bugaboo about genitals; He never told them about sex. They didn't even know they were naked until they ate of the knowledge of good from evil. Then, suddenly, their natural state was perceived as evil - though they don't copulate till the next chapter. It's the son who happened to catch an accidental glimpse of the apparatus that engendered him that was punished, and the old man lolling about in a drunken stupor, leaving his withered loins uncovered, who pronounced the curse on him. Name three instances of moderation in the OT. Eh? Parse that sentence, slowly.... And then correlate the three nouns in it to anything in the OT.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.