zompist bboard

On a related note, I've been giving some thought to what the Terps and neighboring cultures would wear. I was thinking three layers of clothing, underwear like a loincloth, a tunic worn indoors, and some sort of robe or poncho worn over that outdoors. I dunno if that would necessarily work in a subtropical or even the tropical climate that some parts of FAC would have. But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

You could certainly have regional variations in Terpish clothing. It would actually probably be unreasonable to not have some regional variation in a large-ish area, which it would have to be for there to be significant enough temperature variations to make different types of clothing necessary.

Eddy wrote:Discussion of modesty and privacy in your own concultures would not be out of place, either.

Going to use this to avoid the rest of the topic.

Salthan children spend much of their childhoods up to age 10 completely naked, wearing clothes only when doing chores or doing school. (They see it as nutidy = freedom) Starting at 10 they wear clothes full time. The one exception is in the bathhouse, which are often mixed-sex.

Most of the time children sleep in the same room (sometimes kids over 10 gets their own room) and have no problem with changing clothes in front of each other (they don't ask others to turn around, and would keep on a conversation with a sibling of the opposite sex who started peeling in front of them), or in general being naked in front of other immediate family members such as parents, siblings or children.
(Actually, the last one I'm not completely sure about. I don't think the adult reproductive organs would look all the different really from children, since salthans don't have pubic hairs. )

Kind of along with what Curlyjimsam said about rooms, Salthan rooms are the entire floor with no walls between, there's just sheets hung to make up walls. I guess what this means is kids don't SEE their parents having sex, but they'll hear it.

For the last 100 years in the Netegeniu, the territory formerly controlled by the Selian Empire, rural people have been opting for familial longhouses meant for sleeping, as opposed to the traditional round abodes, mainly because they're more easy to defend against raiders and bandits, but also because population densities have become higher. As for privacy, it depends. Excretion is a strictly private business, but bathing is often a social thing, like in rome, japan or turkey. people spend most of their time outside, and sleeping surrounded by people is considered preferable to sleeping alone; its certainly safer both against bandits and in terms of disease; if you choke in your sleep or something there's always gonna be someone to help. In fact the whole sleeping alone thing would seem lonely to most Ieseleu women [men are used to sleeping alone when they travel]. Modesty-wise, its okay to show midriff, shoulders and back. female breats are supposed to be covered, but if they're not its no big deal. Feet, on the other hand, shouldn't be seen, as they're considered shameful. Loads of foot fetish fuel.

their southern neighbours, the horse shepperding Yi nomads, on the other hand, sleep alone in their tents, and have their wifes sleep together in wifetents. For both cultures, sleeping and fucking are two distinct activities. Also you're supposed to be alone indoors, inside your yurt, and since its so cold where they live there's no rule against nudity other than don't be an idiot you want your dick to freeze?

Eddy wrote:On a related note, I've been giving some thought to what the Terps and neighboring cultures would wear. I was thinking three layers of clothing, underwear like a loincloth, a tunic worn indoors, and some sort of robe or poncho worn over that outdoors. I dunno if that would necessarily work in a subtropical or even the tropical climate that some parts of FAC would have. But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

The "heavy" robes aren't actually that heavy, and they tend to be quite loose inside, which makes the air circulate, and means that one gets cooled off wearing them (they also don't really wear much underneath, maybe one layer max). As for the fact that they can be black, I've heard it argued that the colour of your clothing doesn't actually make that much difference to how much heat it absorbs, contrary to popular belief. Basically that sort of robe is actually quite suited to desert climates. A guy I know, originally from Pakistan, said that the first time he went there to visit as an adult, he wore a suit, and immediately melted as soon as he got off the plane – once he'd changed into what the locals wore, probably a robe of some description, it was much better, because the robe allowed the air to circulate. Conversely, the robes were too cold to wear in the UK.

Eddy wrote:On a related note, I've been giving some thought to what the Terps and neighboring cultures would wear. I was thinking three layers of clothing, underwear like a loincloth, a tunic worn indoors, and some sort of robe or poncho worn over that outdoors. I dunno if that would necessarily work in a subtropical or even the tropical climate that some parts of FAC would have. But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

Eddy, if you'd ever seen a Muslim woman wearing the whole caboodle from closer up than a photograph on the Internet, you'd know straightaway that they are not heavy. They're very lightweight, and they look lightweight, especially if it gets a bit windy and then they're all after blowing about all over the place like they're having a party. Go and find some things out, instead of absorbing misinformations.

finlay wrote:

Eddy wrote:On a related note, I've been giving some thought to what the Terps and neighboring cultures would wear. I was thinking three layers of clothing, underwear like a loincloth, a tunic worn indoors, and some sort of robe or poncho worn over that outdoors. I dunno if that would necessarily work in a subtropical or even the tropical climate that some parts of FAC would have. But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

The "heavy" robes aren't actually that heavy, and they tend to be quite loose inside, which makes the air circulate, and means that one gets cooled off wearing them (they also don't really wear much underneath, maybe one layer max). As for the fact that they can be black, I've heard it argued that the colour of your clothing doesn't actually make that much difference to how much heat it absorbs, contrary to popular belief. Basically that sort of robe is actually quite suited to desert climates. A guy I know, originally from Pakistan, said that the first time he went there to visit as an adult, he wore a suit, and immediately melted as soon as he got off the plane – once he'd changed into what the locals wore, probably a robe of some description, it was much better, because the robe allowed the air to circulate. Conversely, the robes were too cold to wear in the UK.

The physicist's explanation: black absorbs more than white, but also emits more than white. So if you expect to be facing direct radiation a lot, it's better to be white, while otherwise it's better to be black. And, lo-and-behold, arab men (according to stereotype), who spend more time in the sun, wear light-coloured robes, while arab women (according to stereotype), who spend less time in the sun, wear dark-coloured robes.

Don't know whether that's the real reason, of course.

Astraios wrote: Eddy, if you'd ever seen a Muslim woman wearing the whole caboodle from closer up than a photograph on the Internet, you'd know straightaway that they are not heavy. They're very lightweight, and they look lightweight, especially if it gets a bit windy and then they're all after blowing about all over the place like they're having a party. Go and find some things out, instead of absorbing misinformations.

I would imagine such an all-enveloping garment must be quite heavy compared to what Western women typically wear (even if not as heavy as it appears in photos). Perhaps as you suggest, I am overestimating their bulk, but surely not by much. Even the finest silk will still get pretty heavy and stuffy if you have enough piled on you, and most people would be wearing far less refined materials. One can only imagine how such clothing made from low grade hemp fiber or something along those lines would feel.

Eddy wrote:I would imagine such an all-enveloping garment must be quite heavy compared to what Western women typically wear (even if not as heavy as it appears in photos).

Well, no. IME Western women wear jeans a lot and denim is heavy (though women's jeans are far more lightweight denim than men's).

Eddy wrote:Perhaps as you suggest, I am overestimating their bulk, but surely not by much. Even the finest silk will still get pretty heavy and stuffy if you have enough piled on you, and most people would be wearing far less refined materials.

Yes by much, as finlay said, they're not wearing one thousand and one layers of the stuff. Even in this country, where it's not that cold really, more than a few women are wearing coats/hoodies/etc. over the top of their black things.

Eddy wrote:

Astraios wrote: Eddy, if you'd ever seen a Muslim woman wearing the whole caboodle from closer up than a photograph on the Internet, you'd know straightaway that they are not heavy. They're very lightweight, and they look lightweight, especially if it gets a bit windy and then they're all after blowing about all over the place like they're having a party. Go and find some things out, instead of absorbing misinformations.

I would imagine such an all-enveloping garment must be quite heavy compared to what Western women typically wear (even if not as heavy as it appears in photos). Perhaps as you suggest, I am overestimating their bulk, but surely not by much. Even the finest silk will still get pretty heavy and stuffy if you have enough piled on you, and most people would be wearing far less refined materials. One can only imagine how such clothing made from low grade hemp fiber or something along those lines would feel.

Stop imagining, for fuck's sake.

Eddy wrote:

Astraios wrote: Eddy, if you'd ever seen a Muslim woman wearing the whole caboodle from closer up than a photograph on the Internet, you'd know straightaway that they are not heavy. They're very lightweight, and they look lightweight, especially if it gets a bit windy and then they're all after blowing about all over the place like they're having a party. Go and find some things out, instead of absorbing misinformations.

I would imagine such an all-enveloping garment must be quite heavy compared to what Western women typically wear (even if not as heavy as it appears in photos). Perhaps as you suggest, I am overestimating their bulk, but surely not by much. Even the finest silk will still get pretty heavy and stuffy if you have enough piled on you, and most people would be wearing far less refined materials. One can only imagine how such clothing made from low grade hemp fiber or something along those lines would feel.

If you only have one layer of fine fabric, it will be very, very light. You are mistaking coverage for bulk.

If you say so, then I guess this just proves me wrong. I was actually thinking of giving some of my conpeople as many as three layers of heavy clothing based on the example of Middle Eastern dress. The example of the burqa led me to imagine that people would accept some incredibly heavy and constraining clothing even in searing heat if they had enough social pressure on them.

Eddy wrote:If you say so, then I guess this just proves me wrong. I was actually thinking of giving some of my conpeople as many as three layers of heavy clothing based on the example of Middle Eastern dress. The example of the burqa led me to imagine that people would accept some incredibly heavy and constraining clothing even in searing heat if they had enough social pressure on them.

That can happen in the short term, but it's not likely to actually develop in the hot area. It would be a tradition carried over from another region, and would probably only last a generation or two before being modified.

They only look bulky because they're actually very loose and therefore let the air flow better and cool the wearer down. They also keep the sunlight off, and help avert the eye of prying men, so women there are happy to wear them, no matter how much you think they're merely a symbol of their oppression by men. (Not, ofc, that women are exactly well-off there, but it's not as bad as you think)

finlay wrote:They only look bulky because they're actually very loose and therefore let the air flow better and cool the wearer down. They also keep the sunlight off, and help avert the eye of prying men, so women there are happy to wear them, no matter how much you think they're merely a symbol of their oppression by men. (Not, ofc, that women are exactly well-off there, but it's not as bad as you think)

As far as the cultural symbolism, those feelings would vary from person to person. There are activists who feel it is imprisoning and dehumanizing, though yes, when the hijab was banned in Iran under the Shah, many women refused to leave the house during the day, because they felt naked with out it. As far as keeping of the prying eyes of men -- I am always skeptical of the reality of that. If all the women in a culture cover themselves completely, men will probably find ways to get titillation out of it.

Salmoneus wrote:

finlay wrote:

Eddy wrote:On a related note, I've been giving some thought to what the Terps and neighboring cultures would wear. I was thinking three layers of clothing, underwear like a loincloth, a tunic worn indoors, and some sort of robe or poncho worn over that outdoors. I dunno if that would necessarily work in a subtropical or even the tropical climate that some parts of FAC would have. But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

The "heavy" robes aren't actually that heavy, and they tend to be quite loose inside, which makes the air circulate, and means that one gets cooled off wearing them (they also don't really wear much underneath, maybe one layer max). As for the fact that they can be black, I've heard it argued that the colour of your clothing doesn't actually make that much difference to how much heat it absorbs, contrary to popular belief. Basically that sort of robe is actually quite suited to desert climates. A guy I know, originally from Pakistan, said that the first time he went there to visit as an adult, he wore a suit, and immediately melted as soon as he got off the plane – once he'd changed into what the locals wore, probably a robe of some description, it was much better, because the robe allowed the air to circulate. Conversely, the robes were too cold to wear in the UK.

The physicist's explanation: black absorbs more than white, but also emits more than white. So if you expect to be facing direct radiation a lot, it's better to be white, while otherwise it's better to be black. And, lo-and-behold, arab men (according to stereotype), who spend more time in the sun, wear light-coloured robes, while arab women (according to stereotype), who spend less time in the sun, wear dark-coloured robes.

Don't know whether that's the real reason, of course.

The engineer's explanation: yes, that's true in the visible part of the spectrum. On the other hand, what colour your clothes are dyed has little effect on their absoption/emission in non-visible wavelengths. On the other other hand, a lot of the sun's radiation that reaches the ground is visible light, so I suppose the colour of clothes does make a difference - though I'm not sure how much.


Just something to think about.

The Glaagh concept of modesty requires that both men and women are covered from the neck to the wrists and ankles when outside of dwellings or special areas, such as areas for personal hygiene (bath-houses, for example). This is normally achieved with a long, flowing, loose robe, normally made out of linen or cotton. Notably, the Glaagh Empire does not suffer from horrendously cold temperatures thanks to the magic field generating warmer temperatures than would be suitable for the area, so this dress is suitable year-round.
Children are exempt, per se, but requiring children to wear the dress early helps ingrain the habit. Practically speaking, woven sandals made of straw are used as footwear, but they aren't required.

Oh, yeah, and violation of the laws of modesty is punishable with a candescence of retribution.

The standard Glaagh dwelling is a circular hut constructed of mud, sticks, or straw (normally the latter two) in which several families may reside, normally closely related to each other. The hut is a single room, with hammocks set up for adults and the children sleeping on a single sheet on the ground. A pit in the center serves as a place for setting up the fires for cooking.

Eddy wrote:But people have certainly worn that much even in hot climates and one can hardly forget the jet-black heavy robes worn by women in some incredibly hot climates.

In cases like those, however, the important aspect (no pun) is that there is good air circulation. that way, its also a way to keep cool.

Since this topic has unexpectedly returned from beyond the grave, I might as well voice some of my concerns here as well. In response to the arguments posed on IRC and mentioned in the opening post, I have been experimenting with developing a distinctly Terpish housing typology. My ideas so far center on giving the house two large general purpose rooms (along with the kitchen, bath, water closet and so forth) rather than the specialized living, dining, and sleeping rooms of Western houses. The larger room, usually joining the entrance, serves as the living and dining room during the day and provides a place for children (and guests if present) to sleep. The smaller room, away from the entrance, serves as a more private living room for the parents (or other set of adults who inhabit the house) and where they sleep.

I am wondering whether this would really make for a viable housing typology or whether it violates some sense of privacy and separation of uses. It seems to me that making the main room of the house both a living room for the family and a bedroom for the children makes the room too generalized and undifferentiated. If one may consider a house organically, it strikes me like having the functions of breathing and digestion crammed into one organ. In this case the functions of a common area for the whole family and an area for children to play and sleep seem rather contradictory and incompatible somehow. Of course, splitting the functions into a dedicated living room and dedicated bedroom for children brings us back to the usual typology of Western houses that I set out to avoid.

Eddy wrote:It seems to me that making the main room of the house both a living room for the family and a bedroom for the children makes the room too generalized and undifferentiated. If one may consider a house organically, it strikes me like having the functions of breathing and digestion crammed into one organ.

Ladies and gentleman, the pharynx.

Presumably all work/cooking/cleaning/etc. that goes on in the common room ends before the children go to bed?

It's entirely conceivable that, given cramped cities and tiny apartments, your Terps might get so used to little one-room apartments that even when they HAVE more space, they still opt for a larger open-plan arrangement. This might run into problems with modesty in a culture USED to having private rooms for everyone, but if they're used to having their beds in view of the common area (an apartment then being basically a really clean cubical yurt), then it wouldn't be an issue.

Eddy wrote:I am wondering whether this would really make for a viable housing typology or whether it violates some sense of privacy and separation of uses. It seems to me that making the main room of the house both a living room for the family and a bedroom for the children makes the room too generalized and undifferentiated. If one may consider a house organically, it strikes me like having the functions of breathing and digestion crammed into one organ. In this case the functions of a common area for the whole family and an area for children to play and sleep seem rather contradictory and incompatible somehow. Of course, splitting the functions into a dedicated living room and dedicated bedroom for children brings us back to the usual typology of Western houses that I set out to avoid.

In my family, which is for the most part is a traditional WASP family from West Virginia, my parents routinely allow my sister's small children ( (a girl and a boy, ages 2 and 4) to sleep on the floor in the living room, on open sleeping bags. It's also not unusual in the US for guests to have to sleep on couches if no guest room is available, as evidenced by the very existence of sofa beds. What's more, when I used to go to my maternal grandmother's house for holidays, most of the children would generally sleep in the living room, the bedrooms having been taken by adult guests. To make it a cultural norm for children and guests to sleep communally in a living area doesn't seem unusual.

It's usual practice with my family and friends to have guests sleep in the living room, too. It should be easy to extend that to everyone sleeping there, even in a conculture similar to Western Europe (my own family are all English).

finlay wrote:Stop imagining, for fuck's sake.

ah yes, I missed this. But it's a neat illustration of what WE ALL KNOW is Eddy's problem with new information.


Here, reduced to pure form, is the Eddyfilter:

Eddy wrote:

Astraios wrote:Go and find some things out

I would imagine ...

In 1884 American Navy lieutenant George Foulk went on a trip around Korea while serving as an emissary of the US government. Some fun quotes from his diary:

I went to the WC this a.m., a little ring of rushes in the yard, filthy and obscene beyond expression. Fully 150 people of all kinds stood by silently watching me with the most unconcerned manner in the world... There seems to be not the faintest idea of modesty and of allowing privacy among the people.

I tried to go to the WC several times this a.m., but the savages followed, even went before, and it would have been impossible for me to do anything without being examined with utter, entire disregard for decency.

There is no WC here where I can go without being in plain sight of the mob and so I feel bad physically. I cannot possibly submit myself to such humiliation. It is too much.

It just goes on like this for a hundred pages.