this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
38 points (88.0% liked)
Anthropology
615 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/Anthropology @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @[email protected] if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
We've all got something to work on, even the author.
Sure, and I never said otherwise, but still find it deeply ironic coming from someone writing an article about exactly that (having a modern "blind spot" some are comfortable maintaining).. ยฏ\(ใ)/ยฏ