Tell me about nudity, Veeky Forums

One French missionary in Congo reported difficulty in converting natives when he told them to stop letting the women go topless and nude

The reasoning (aside from the obvious heat) was that only prostitutes cover up. Don't want potential customers seeing the goodies without paying up first.

A pure girl wouldn't care about her nakedness.

>Yeah, because Adam's cock is definitely not hanging out in 'The Creation of Adam' by Michelangelo.
In Renaissance the human form was once again seen as perfect after the 1000 years of medieval "physical is sinful, think only of your immortal soul".

Notice retardedly massive jump in quality of portraying humans from 12th century vaguely human shaped blobs the size of city walls to 15th century drawn by an 8 year old but still realistically proportioned humans to 16th century Michelangelo or any of the other great masters .

>The reasoning (aside from the obvious heat) was that only prostitutes cover up. Don't want potential customers seeing the goodies without paying up first.
That's retarded. If every one is topless that what's the point you just glance left or right and see what you're being denied there.

Also
>africans never discovered animal husbandry or wheel but did discover prostitution

something something ooga booga something something white women

I think both of those things are more complicated than "I'll give you a dozen yams if you suck my dick".

Africans raised chickens, cows, goats, sheep, and horses (where they could survive). Dogs were used for hunting and guarding. Cats kept vermin away.

I view history in a manner similar to Evola. This isn't pertinent quite yet, but it will be.

Let's go back to pre-agricultural societies. In fact, let's go to the evolution of early man. Just a few thousand years prior he had quite a bit more hair, keeping him warm and protecting his genitalia. Now free of the hair that acted as a means of protection, we see the earliest humans beginning to use clothing. As with many things, such a key piece of modern human interaction began thusly: a means of survival. With time, such a means evolved into a cultural norm. A few similar examples: burial of the dead is now an elaborate funeral, but started simply as a means to be rid of rotting flesh; eating is now a highly ritualized practice, but was originally simply a means to sustain the self. Let's continue with the eating tangent. In many early societies, and even today in some tribal parts of Africa, the rotund figure is valued over the skinnier figure culturally. Why? Means of self-preservation and procreation. With time symbols develop culturally alongside the aforementioned rituals. This is our answer: nudity was demonized as a result of continued covering of the body, early humans eventually indirectly seeing exposed flesh as something precluding life, and thus being negative.

>the Renaissance was a return to a pagan spirit
Please remind me when making sacrifices to the old gods and making shrines to these gods became the norm again.

>some people didn't like nudity, so that means Christianity is entirely against anything concerning anatomy

>"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?"
- 1 Corinthians 6:19

Protip: Christianity and Christians are often times two very different entities

lol

I'm reminded of a Dahomean anecdote about a Fon chief who became infatuated with a young woman. He offered her gold, slaves, ivory, silver, lands, power, livestock, european and north african luxury goods but she rejected him every time. One day she fell ill and died. So old chief fucks her still warm corpse while a Yoruba slave watched in secret. Said slave blabbed about it to everyone and the chief was moved elsewhere by the king in disgrace. Old chiefie banned yoruba people from his territory after that.

>Please remind me when making sacrifices to the old gods and making shrines to these gods became the norm again.
I don't think you understood what I said.

Now on to the bit pertaining to Evola. Let's discuss the veiling of women and the unique nature of female nudity.

Back to pre-agricultural societies. Lack of hierarchy and skill specialization favored egalitarianism, insofar as artifacts can tell.

Along comes the agricultural revolution, and things change. The cultivation of food ultimately favors the masculine figure and as such masculinity becomes dominant. On an interactive and psychological level masculinity is naturally dominant however, but this is another discussion altogether. Regardless, the cultural supremacy of masculinity was a social construct resultant of environmental factors that favored it. Thus, psychological feminine subjugation was reinforced culturally, and women assumed the position of the home.

Just as previously discussed, the means of self-preservation becomes the cultural norm. The natural position of males and females in agricultural societies was male supremacy and female subjugation.

Another means to protect one's genetics: keep your wife away from other men and if she does need to be around them, keep her veiled, especially in hot climates. This was a cultural development common to the people's of the Mid East, especially the Semites.

Environmental reaction becomes cultural norm once more, and it becomes natural to hold the female form in high regard pertaining to reproduction, and thus veil them to keep them subdued.

Thus assumes order. The threat of pleasure in the masculine society has been quashed and kept in its place. Enter the 1900s, and things begin to shift. The usurpation of the masculine order began in the mid 1800s due to the industrial revolution, forcing women into jobs. First and second wave feminism solidified the decay of masculinity in the west politically and socially (each wave respectively.)

Now comes 21st century and third wave feminism, a direct attack on the conservative masculine order. Now comes decadence.

The embrace of the female form as a means of dominance is central to third wave feminism. It tries to destroy the masculine, and replace it with something altogether.

This may not be negative, but in changeover from one cultural paradigm to another temporary decadence is certain. I tend to view the dominance of the feminine as negative for this reason: indulgence. A society cannot function when indulgence and pleasure are paramount. These desires must be kept in check to keep society orderly.

Of course such indulgence would most likely be temporary. If the feminine order could be sustained, conservative ideals would come into place that ultimately favor the quashing of pleasure, as it is the only was society can be sustained.

Thus we have the answer to the special nature of female nudity: it was required to sustain the masculine order, and thus thus the entirety of society.