In calling clothing a human construct, I do not mean that no other animals "wear" or could wear anything. Though very different from robes or pants, a hermit crab dons shells left behind by marine snails. Decorator crabs attach objects or other organisms to themselves, even if this is more analogous to human jewelry like bracelets or necklaces than actual clothing. There might be some form of alien race that wears clothing moreso like we do. There is simply no evidence for them. Humans are still the only observed/reported creature to create and wear such diverse materials for such a broad range of purposes, like safety from temperature and the signification of political power [1]. The substances that form clothing are found in nature or crafted from natural resources, yet clothes themselves are constructs of individuals and societies.
Human clothing is a human construct, although God is said to have fashioned primitive garments for the first humans of Eden in Genesis 3. This does not mean all later clothing was created by God as opposed to the initial universe which yields the materials to make them. Neither does it prescribe clothing, as the naked body itself, like admiration of it, is never condemned and thus objectively nonsinful according to the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2). Connected with the death of an animal for atonement of sorts, the clothing of Eden conveys God's mercy. The humans had disregarded their obligation to the only ultimate source of life (1 Timothy 6:16) and deserves to perish (Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23), and in covering their bodies once the sense of shame overcame them, God shows how he is willing to cover their sin.
A subjective sense of shame, which is not necessarily present in all people towards their names bodies or those of others and which can be eliminated, does not make something objectively immoral. Preference and perception are irrelevant. After all, in Christianity, God made humans naked (Genesis 2:25), and his creation is very good (Genesis 1:31). Women give birth to more generations of humans naked (Ecclesiastes 5:15). Why people wear clothing is strictly a practical, individualistic, or cultural matter. However, a common reason cited by many American Christians as to why we wear clothing is both false by necessity and reductionistically in denial of other motivations: they think that the body, especially genitalia, is sexual and needs to be covered to prevent sexual sins. This is logically false since there is no metaphysical connection between the mere body or any kind of material covering for it and sexuality. All of these connections, even for something like lingerie, are behaviorally situational, subjectively perceived, or on the level of intention and not the physical body or its attire.
Whether due to default personality, having the correct philosophical stances on the nature of clothing, or having adjusted to perceiving sensual clothing on the body or the total lack of it, it is not as if everyone will experience a sensual--but not strictly or necessarily sexual--attraction towards the human body, clothed or not. Clothing is not universally worn to allegedly keep sexual attraction at bay, not that any amount or lack of clothing accomplishes this or that material ever has a sexual quality to it (it can only be used or perceived this way, like the body itself, but it is all nonsexual). First of all, there is nothing sexual about it even if it is perceived sexually, which has nothing to do with its objective nature. Second, clothing can be worn with the intention of inspiring sexual interest, despite not even lingerie being sexual in itself [2]. Third, there are still many other possible reasons to where clothing that have nothing to do even with sensuality or sexuality (which are not the same things!) on the level of intentions.
Making and wearing clothing is, as far as seems to be the case, a human construct even if other animals occasionally have loosely similar practices and even if God made the very first human clothes. What is objectively true and knowable is that the nature of clothing is inherently nonsexual. It is just fabric or other materials, and a body is just a body. Some types of clothing are inherently sensual but still nonsexual. None of them can only be used or regarded sexually. Perception and tradition is not truth, so it feeling like something is sexual does not make it so. Not even lingerie, literally made and worn with a usually sexual intention, is sexual itself. It is just fabric. Sexual repression, the goal of the legalistic Christians who oppose the body and of many secular people as well, is far from the only possible motivation behind clothing. It is just an irrelevant one. Environmental protection, fitting in with marketing trends, personal appeal, and more can all be reasons why people wear anything at all.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-human-construct-of-clothing-part-one.html
No comments:
Post a Comment