The invention of clothes likely helped boost human birthrates, by inadvertently increasing sexual arousal when someone occasionally sees another’s genitals.
Being turned on from someone being naked isn’t inherit. Lots of cultures have causal nudity and nothing happens. The invention of clothes and the concept of nudity being only bad/ sexual etc is new.
People have different interests in sexual attraction. It has more to do with attraction, than sex organs. The use of clothing is for protection. It has evolved into uses for modesty, and sexual desire, but that is not what clothing was invented for.
Idk you might be onto smth, but before we wore clothes we mated more as far as I heard, and when we started wearing clothes we only exposed our genitalia to special people. I might be totally wrong though
So as a certified “clam-inspector” you have to understand that not all people are simply aroused by nudity alone.
But if they are, let me pose this. Someone who is nude at all times is “open for business” non-stop. Clothing adds a layer of effort for the act to begin. It’s blocking visual stimuli and adding steps to the process.
People who are aroused by literally anything else don’t care if their partner is nude or not.
I wonder if it could be compared to something like how our phone screens can disrupt our sense of nighttime and mess with our sleep schedules. We need blue light filters to counter it.
But then all the diverse cultural developments around clothing and how each views sexuality? There’s just so much to dive into from so many angles!
It must be weird to be a nudist. You’re around so many nude people every day that you don’t get aroused by it. But what happens if someone does arouse you? You can’t hide it. There’s a lot of embarrassment at stake. It must be shunned to be turned on in public.
I get the feeling that ancient man not being too concerned with things like ‘consent’ or ‘age of majority’ probably had a bit more to do with it. Not really a time I would have preferred to be alive.
Nah, a dude can get arouse and fuck ANYTHING (dolls, choir boys, sheeps, male inmates, incestual family members, etc). It doesn’t take much to get them aroused. In fact, we needed society to tell them to not do these things so that they stop doing so. They will easily get aroused by women clothes or not.
Key assumption being made that kinda makes it unlikely is that you’re assuming sexual arousal was the limiting factor to population growth prehistorically.
As a Finn, this comment section only makes me wonder why are Americans and others this weird about nudity.
According to some of the logic on display, I wouldn’t get my dick up anymore when I see my girlfriend after years and years of casual nudity around the house and the sauna, but lo-and-behold, that hump still makes all the junk inside that trunk sprung.
kind of connected to this, and I know it’s a weird thought, but I think sex is hotter when it’s a bit of a taboo. When it’s too normalised, it becomes… just not as exciting. I think that’s why I like more kinky stuff that is still taboo-ish.
Probably not. Humans have very large genitals when compared to our nearest relatives. This would normally indicate that visibility mattered while we evolved.
i get very aroused at my fully clothed girlfriend, if you only find someone sexually attractive when they’re naked, that’s abnormal from everything i’ve heard of people in healthy relationships
This perspective was cultivated through culture. It’s very narrow minded and inconsistent with many other cultures. It also ignores so many other factors when considering arousal.
It’s not to say this couldn’t have been a factor for some limited/small subset of a growing population, but it’s counter perspective likely did as much if not more harm through introducing shaming and the generation of porn and other things, where self indulgence and the breakdown of family units begins.
There were quite a few cultures where expensive fabrics and more or less covering clothes where considered sexual, so the effect might not have nothing to do with occasional flashes of parts under, but rather with the occasional sight of being covered with something new and valuable.
Some of the earliest clothes were string skirts that didn’t so much hide female genitals as frame them attractively. The girdles referenced in Greek mythology likely refer to these. Early lingerie with a ceremonial component, I guess.
Have you watched other primates? I don’t think they have any issues in that department. You also don’t control for any of the other documented factors (short lives/early deaths, infant mortality, etc.) that have absolutely been proven to limit population growth. But hey…this is a shower thought, not a serious theorization….
Actually coming from a research standpoint- women are much more sexualized and have more sexual crimes happen when in societies with more clothing (middle east or asia) than those where revealing clothing is the norm.
Truly- the more to the imagination the worse (or better depending on how you look at it)
But anyone from a research standpoint knows that correlation is not causation so this could be due to culture, race, population size etc… but it is interesting to think about
It’s funny that is just about what happened in Hawaii.
Supposedly when americans brought clothes from the west for the Indigenous peoples to wear underwear and swimwear became the biggest issue because the way it covered up things made all the people really horny.
I think it’s the effect for craving something that isn’t obvious or “forbidden” at least for us humans that makes it arousing. There’s a link between tabu topics and cravings in our brain that facilitates that. Covering our genitals created that realm of mysteriousness around sex. Religion over the years extended that realm by introducing “premartial purity”
A huge limiting factor was starvation and hunger. Up until modern times, most people weee starving most of the time or close to it. Women don’t get periods when they are underweight. Nobody is really in the mood to get it on if all they ate was gruel.
Can’t remember which discworld book it was that had trolls do a reverse strip-tease, the lady trolls would put on more and more layers of increasingly modest clothes as part of their show to tantalise the male trolls, who found this extremely exciting due to the fact trolls are normally fully naked.
That’s an interesting thought, but the evidence doesn’t really support it. Clothing didn’t drive birthrates — humans were reproducing successfully long before clothing became common.
The reason ancient societies like Egypt or Rome had an average life expectancy of ~30 wasn’t because people stopped reproducing; it was because child mortality was extremely high. A simple fever, infection, or even diarrhea could be fatal, and wars or raids claimed many lives. If someone survived childhood, it was common to live into their 50s or even 60s.
So the real factor wasn’t sexual arousal from clothes — it was the massive drop in survival rates for infants and children. Once health, nutrition, and sanitation improved, mortality fell and populations grew.
primitive clothing was probably a loincloth to protect your ass when you sit and a cloak to keep off the elements, I don’t think they did much to protect anyone’s modesty though.
Comments
[deleted]
/u/clam-inspector has flaired this post as a speculation.
Speculations should prompt people to consider interesting premises that cannot be reliably verified or falsified.
If this post is poorly written, unoriginal, or rule-breaking, please report it.
Otherwise, please add your comment to the discussion!
^^This ^^is ^^an ^^automated ^^system.
^^If ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^questions, ^^please ^^use ^^this ^^link ^^to ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
Likely because we didn’t freeze to death but alright.
Wouldn’t full cover decrease the birth rate
Being turned on from someone being naked isn’t inherit. Lots of cultures have causal nudity and nothing happens. The invention of clothes and the concept of nudity being only bad/ sexual etc is new.
It’s only logical that to make clothes you need a string. So the first thing that would have been Invented is the g-string.
/s
[deleted]
People have different interests in sexual attraction. It has more to do with attraction, than sex organs. The use of clothing is for protection. It has evolved into uses for modesty, and sexual desire, but that is not what clothing was invented for.
Idk you might be onto smth, but before we wore clothes we mated more as far as I heard, and when we started wearing clothes we only exposed our genitalia to special people. I might be totally wrong though
So as a certified “clam-inspector” you have to understand that not all people are simply aroused by nudity alone.
But if they are, let me pose this. Someone who is nude at all times is “open for business” non-stop. Clothing adds a layer of effort for the act to begin. It’s blocking visual stimuli and adding steps to the process.
People who are aroused by literally anything else don’t care if their partner is nude or not.
Interesting thought but seems a bit off to me.
I agree.
First cavewoman to see a man wearing a bearskin suit probably said, “You’re SUCH an ANIMAL!” and other cavemen took notice.
Did we lose our fur because of clothes? Or did we put on clothes because we had lost our fur?
(I say fur not hair because we still have very thin hairs)
Is there any other species that dons the pelts and hides of its prey victims as clothing?
There’s definitely something there.
I wonder if it could be compared to something like how our phone screens can disrupt our sense of nighttime and mess with our sleep schedules. We need blue light filters to counter it.
But then all the diverse cultural developments around clothing and how each views sexuality? There’s just so much to dive into from so many angles!
It must be weird to be a nudist. You’re around so many nude people every day that you don’t get aroused by it. But what happens if someone does arouse you? You can’t hide it. There’s a lot of embarrassment at stake. It must be shunned to be turned on in public.
I get the feeling that ancient man not being too concerned with things like ‘consent’ or ‘age of majority’ probably had a bit more to do with it. Not really a time I would have preferred to be alive.
Also probably prevented ball sacks from getting caught on branches and shit.
Nah, a dude can get arouse and fuck ANYTHING (dolls, choir boys, sheeps, male inmates, incestual family members, etc). It doesn’t take much to get them aroused. In fact, we needed society to tell them to not do these things so that they stop doing so. They will easily get aroused by women clothes or not.
Call the zoos! clam-inspector figured out how to save endangered species. Modesty and shame leading to arousal when naked. They need to get on it.
Key assumption being made that kinda makes it unlikely is that you’re assuming sexual arousal was the limiting factor to population growth prehistorically.
Sounds like the beginning of a study done by King’s University.
Have you seen how much animals fuck? I don’t think it made difference that way lol
As a Finn, this comment section only makes me wonder why are Americans and others this weird about nudity.
According to some of the logic on display, I wouldn’t get my dick up anymore when I see my girlfriend after years and years of casual nudity around the house and the sauna, but lo-and-behold, that hump still makes all the junk inside that trunk sprung.
kind of connected to this, and I know it’s a weird thought, but I think sex is hotter when it’s a bit of a taboo. When it’s too normalised, it becomes… just not as exciting. I think that’s why I like more kinky stuff that is still taboo-ish.
Probably not. Humans have very large genitals when compared to our nearest relatives. This would normally indicate that visibility mattered while we evolved.
i get very aroused at my fully clothed girlfriend, if you only find someone sexually attractive when they’re naked, that’s abnormal from everything i’ve heard of people in healthy relationships
Monkeys don’t seem to have any problems getting aroused despite walking around with their junk on display.
Bet it also raised human birth rates by not fucking freezing to death.
Ridiculous. When I was a teen I got aroused by Kim Possible. I don’t think hormone infused teens need psychological tricks to get aroused.
Yeah but for me more like the invention of specific clothing, particularly bodysuits
Not getting an infection probably helped.
Also fewer penises bitten by other animals.
This being upvoted this heavily makes me incredibly sad.
The real secret to higher populations was never “birth rate” but child mortality rate.
This perspective was cultivated through culture. It’s very narrow minded and inconsistent with many other cultures. It also ignores so many other factors when considering arousal.
It’s not to say this couldn’t have been a factor for some limited/small subset of a growing population, but it’s counter perspective likely did as much if not more harm through introducing shaming and the generation of porn and other things, where self indulgence and the breakdown of family units begins.
There were quite a few cultures where expensive fabrics and more or less covering clothes where considered sexual, so the effect might not have nothing to do with occasional flashes of parts under, but rather with the occasional sight of being covered with something new and valuable.
Some of the earliest clothes were string skirts that didn’t so much hide female genitals as frame them attractively. The girdles referenced in Greek mythology likely refer to these. Early lingerie with a ceremonial component, I guess.
This isn’t showerthought, it’s just wrongthought
It also led to undesirable traits being passed down, such as hairy asses and small pps.
Have you watched other primates? I don’t think they have any issues in that department. You also don’t control for any of the other documented factors (short lives/early deaths, infant mortality, etc.) that have absolutely been proven to limit population growth. But hey…this is a shower thought, not a serious theorization….
Actually coming from a research standpoint- women are much more sexualized and have more sexual crimes happen when in societies with more clothing (middle east or asia) than those where revealing clothing is the norm.
Truly- the more to the imagination the worse (or better depending on how you look at it)
But anyone from a research standpoint knows that correlation is not causation so this could be due to culture, race, population size etc… but it is interesting to think about
I see where youre coming from, clothes werent invented for that, but caused a growth. Yes.
Because if society treats hidden and private parts as that, hidden and private and taboo..
…getting to these parts feels accomplishing and like a big effort.
Or something like that. Scarcity causes interest. Yea.
Ancient guy sees a shoulder, makes 30 children, refuses to elaborate, dies of leprosy
How many children are born due to accident penis sightings?
It’s funny that is just about what happened in Hawaii.
Supposedly when americans brought clothes from the west for the Indigenous peoples to wear underwear and swimwear became the biggest issue because the way it covered up things made all the people really horny.
I think it’s the effect for craving something that isn’t obvious or “forbidden” at least for us humans that makes it arousing. There’s a link between tabu topics and cravings in our brain that facilitates that. Covering our genitals created that realm of mysteriousness around sex. Religion over the years extended that realm by introducing “premartial purity”
So basically, clothes turned genitals from “default setting” to “limited edition unlockables.”
Humanity said: Hide it, and suddenly everyone wants it.
A huge limiting factor was starvation and hunger. Up until modern times, most people weee starving most of the time or close to it. Women don’t get periods when they are underweight. Nobody is really in the mood to get it on if all they ate was gruel.
I’m gonna disagree on this one. I lived with hunter gatherers and all they do is have sex. Birth rates isn’t the issue it’s mortality…
Can’t remember which discworld book it was that had trolls do a reverse strip-tease, the lady trolls would put on more and more layers of increasingly modest clothes as part of their show to tantalise the male trolls, who found this extremely exciting due to the fact trolls are normally fully naked.
I really did not want to see this at 8 in the morning
That’s an interesting thought, but the evidence doesn’t really support it. Clothing didn’t drive birthrates — humans were reproducing successfully long before clothing became common.
The reason ancient societies like Egypt or Rome had an average life expectancy of ~30 wasn’t because people stopped reproducing; it was because child mortality was extremely high. A simple fever, infection, or even diarrhea could be fatal, and wars or raids claimed many lives. If someone survived childhood, it was common to live into their 50s or even 60s.
So the real factor wasn’t sexual arousal from clothes — it was the massive drop in survival rates for infants and children. Once health, nutrition, and sanitation improved, mortality fell and populations grew.
I think it boosted the birthrates because it stopped people from freezing to death
The forbidden fruit only tastes good because it’s forbidden.
primitive clothing was probably a loincloth to protect your ass when you sit and a cloak to keep off the elements, I don’t think they did much to protect anyone’s modesty though.
Clothes increase birth rates solely because they protect your genitals.
Most animals attack your throat or genitals and it’s best to not have them exposed.