Mankind's favorite activity is eating, which is normally performed dressed, not sex. Everybody likes to eat, and must do so of necessity. Humans under the age of 10 or so and much beyond their mid-60s, which embraces of substantial portion of humanity, normally have little interest in sex.

We mentioned Onassis and in another thread we mentioned Jackie Kennedy and, actually, the image of her standing there, in her blood-flecked clothes, to witness LBJ's swearing-in, perfectly illustrates my point in starting this thread. She was always well dressed and even something of a 1960s style icon, but the clothes were mere background to who she was and how she behaved and the occasions that she had to wear them. They were necessary background, because she had to wear something and, that being so, happened to be the kind of woman who always chose to wear something good. But the clothes had tiny essential impotance to how we remember her.

Interesting points, FNB, and they need to be digested, before anything else from me.

I see one side of the argument as very anti-iGent. and we are hardly iGents when, for me, many of the best conversations don't involve clothes at all.

Last edited by NJS (2011-05-27 08:23:54)

I doubt the iGents talk or even think much about clothes offline.

The human body is not that attractive, at least to me. Clothes add a depth that God missed in his grand design.