39
What the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy fossil reveals about nudity and shame
(theconversation.com)
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
About
Rules
Resources
This is an interesting read and it makes some good points, but I find it ironic that the author can see that our modern issues with nudity didn't always apply to humans (or our close ancestors/other hominids), yet makes claims like:
Which fails as soon as you go beyond the theoretical (we have not only historical evidence, but live examples still existing today that demonstrate the origin of "it takes a village to raise a child") and is supported by a piece of research that frames the opposite of monogamous "pair bonding" to be "promiscuity". ๐
They are doing the exact same applying modern morals and constructs as they're criticising others of doing with regards to nudity, only with regards to the idea of the "nuclear family" and "monogamous fidelity", which I guess is something they aren't ready to break down yet..
There is nothing more speculative than evolutionary psychology.
Ok, that still doesn't make the situation any less ironic.