Chengjiang wrote:Are there any clearly observable patterns in what areas of the body a culture will deem taboo to show, and to what people? Do these things pattern by e.g. (culture's native) climate, family structure, societal organization? Are there patterns in the type of clothing that is normative in a culture beyond what is needed to cover taboo areas?
Well, obviously climate is the most important factor. Whatever is normally covered is to some extent taboo to uncover, though of course the taboo can vary in strength from a mild disapproval through to execution. And the colder it is, the more will normally be covered.
The other reason for clothing (and hence nudity taboos) is display. Apparently only one settled civilisation has ever been discovered in which clothing was not regularly worn (huastec, iirc?), and even there they wore jewellary. On the other hand, minimal or no clothing are not uncommon among tropical hunter-gatherers.
So, tropical hunter-gatherer society = minimal clothing = minimal taboos. Highly stratified arctic society in which status is typically displayed by clothing = lots of clothing = complex and extensive taboos. Of course, in a more highly differentiated society, taboos may differ more between different classifications of people (eg slave vs free, clergy vs laity, rich vs poor).
I would also guess - but I have no actual evidence - that societies in which people spend a lot of time living in the same space as their immediate family may have fewer clothing taboos
within that family sphere, for the sake of convenience if nothing else.
There will also be some influence from occupations and practices. Societies in which people spend a lot of time swimming or bathing will presumably have to be more accepting of the sight of human skin.
And obviously attitudes to sex will be influential. A society in which women are expected to be virgins at marriage and then to be faithful to one man for life will probably cover women up much more than a society in which premarital sex and adultery (and/or easy divorce and remarriage) are expected will.
Finally, technology and technology-related practices might be an issue. One reason for the traditional European paranoia about completely obscuring the legs of women with multiple layers of dresses, petticoats and hose is the fact that everybody knew that under all of that the women weren't wearing any underwear. Without all that leg-draping, one good gust of wind (or one roving hand) could expose their genitals very quickly. But underwear was not possible: the general opposition to bathing (probably in origin a medical concern arising from the cold climate) and shaving, combined with the lack of access to cheap, non-painful soaps, and of course the lack of cheap and non-dangerous insecticides, meant that a woman's genitals were constantly at risk of becoming infested and/or infected, and people did not dare cover them up too much directly with underwear. Hence a great deal of indirect obstruction was required, which fully covered the legs, making the legs taboo...
As to what is covered: the genitals. Among men, the taboo seems to begin with the glans (there are societies in which only this is covered, even some where women's genitals can be uncovered but not the male glans), and then spread down the penis (penis gourds often only cover the penis) and finally the genitals. Women's breasts are probably the next item after genitals. After that? I would suspect that it spreads out from the genitals, influenced by the breasts - so belly (between the two) gets covered relatively early, as do the thighs. Hair is often a taboo; eyes are relatively rarely a taboo.
