View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Sexy Garb

Rate this Entry
In an ideal state of nature, people would not, and did not, hide their bodies under clothing of any sort, but for various reasons, the wearing of clothing became common almost everywhere. Garments not only protect the body from inclement weather and other unpleasantnesses, but it hides the bodies from the sexually interested of persons of the complementary sex, and that can be inconvenient, and that inconvenience has increased over time. For the first few million years, the bodies were generally touchable by the questing hand of someone of the opposite sex, but undergarments started getting in the way a couple thousand years ago, even though women at their sexiest are usually clothed only in a little black dress, or something similar of a different color, and that garment ideally has nothing under it.

But I have gotten the impression that some women have settled for displaying shape in the hope of attracting a man, but that isnít nearly as sexy as the old-fashioned technique of leaving the body relatively uncovered, as was the case before undergarments became common in the late 1800ís. Before that time, women were commonly clad only in a light layer of cloth that did not completely cover, and it left easy access to important parts of the womanís anatomy. In somewhat earlier times, the situation was even more convenient, because men also wore only a loose robe, also without undergarments.

Whoever invented undergarments did humanity a great disservice. Not only did underclothes make bodies less accessible, but they encouraged thrush in women, which made them even less available and less desirable. Then there was the introduction of ridings clothes, which initially happened in the second millennium BCE, that revolution introduced bifurcated kilts and similar garments, but it led to clothing becoming soiled more quickly and to the adoption of underclothes. If people had never taken to riding horses while wearing clothes the world would be different; I wonder if it would be happier.

But there are people who wear tight clothing of stretchy fabric, and that can be quite alluring, but that style is sometimes adopted by those who would be doing everyone a favor by hiding their anatomies. Under ideal circumstance, such tight, stretchy fabric is frustrating for everyone involved, and the ideal state of nature would be preferable, except when it would not provide adequate warmth. One of my inspirations for this post was a woman who wears tight, stretchy clothing with sections of her plumpness showing between the pieces of clothing. I think that traditional tent-like clothing would be preferable, but thatís only my opinion.

A solution to the matter of covering that may have been near the ideal was have been what the English introduced to Scotland: for the men, and dresses of similar style for the women. The goal for the English overlords was to get more production from the Scots, who wore untailored toga-like garment that required the use of one hand to remain in place. The English novelties were successful. They allowed fresh air and fresh hands to have access, and for more complete access, when the situation dictated. But the kilts did allow the men to be more productive, because they didn't have to hold their robes one with one hand, so the English overlords got more production.

Well, this is a blog that didn't go very far, and it only reminded me of how far from the ideal state humans are.

Updated 02-04-2020 at 05:50 PM by PeterL