#ShirtsAndSkorts - No.2 - [:Question & Answer - #2:] - (Reality Check) Aug12th/13th 2024
#ShirtsAndSkorts - Q-&-A (Reality Check) #No.2
5 Questions Of :
- KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM & UNDERSTANDING
For
- Clothing, Dressing & Covering
with
- Purpose, Reasoning & Meaning
THE 5 QUESTIONS :
(1) "Covering Of The Lower Bodily"
For Such dressing that the world calls "Shorts" that are generaly of"standard" above the knees in length, even for uniform of schools & other things where it considers this "formal" or "presentable" to the utmost integrity, how is it that shorts THAT ARE BELOW KNEE HEIGHT (to being LONGER than level at the knees) WITH MORE COVERING OF ONE'S NAKEDNESS ARE CONSIDERED "UNTIDY" & "BAGGY" when a person is actualy LESS NAKED when wearing them, OBVIOUSLY being FULLY COVERED when pants are at level reach of the feet and ankles?
(2) "Covering Of The Upper Bodily"
Why is it that T-Shirts are considered an INITIAL "GENERAL STANDARD OF "FULL COVERING" when infact FULL COVERING OF ONES NAKEDNESS is actualy up to the WRISTS & NECKS TOP BASE, & such T-Shirt IS ACTUALY AND OBVIOUSLY "UNDERGARMENT", to what are called "Sweaters or Jackets, such "Sweater Designs even have "TURTLE NECKS" THAT COVER UP TO THE TOP BASE OF THE NECK, WHICH FOR BOTH SEXES IN BOTH OF THESE CASES BETWEEN ARMS AND NECK FOR MAN OR WOMAN, IS INDEED FULL COVERING OF ONE'S NAKEDNESS FOR THE UPPPER BODY?
(3) Fabric Thickness & "Con-text-ure" Of Clothing & Covering One's Nakedeness
Is laminated-ly skin tight of any fabric even thinest as possible TRULY "COVERING" OF ONE'S NAKEDNESS when infact there is an extremely large portion of "SHAPLINESS" that is ACCORDING TO THE NAKEDNESS OF BOTH AND SPECIFICALY EITHER MEN OR WOMEN'S RESPECTIVE SEX'S(identifable also by their bodies) though very different in particular refference which are not void of THE SAME CLOTHING & NEED FOR ITS DEFINITION IN "COVERING OF ONE'S NAKEDNESS?
(4) Clothing With Purpose & Utility Reasoning Beyond Merely Considering Only Covering One's Nakedness with Cloth
Is Dressing & Covering one's body with clothing ONLY AND MERELY "To It's LEAST" because no one will ever need to CARRY ANY OBJECT OR THINGS WITH THEM "ON THEIR PERSON AMONGST OR WITHIN THEIR DRESSING (pockets), yet we live in an age of THE BASIC NEEED FOR COMMUNICATION (*-also to mention basic access to information &-for verification and authent-if-ication-*) which involves even the having of "Personal Super-computer cellular phones" & tablets, even for centuries & more having basic "WALLET" needs for documentation, EVEN SUCH BASIC BODILY NECESITIES SUCH AS NOURISHMENT CONCERNING FOODSTUFFS OF POULAR AND GENERAL EVERY DAY KNOWLEDGE CALLED "SNACKS"(at least) & "CANDIES", such that are helpful "on-the-go", let alone to think of any kind of "WATER/JUICE/DRINK BOTTLE or beverage if one gets thirsty while walking or working?
(5) Present Time & Age Of BASIC Considerable Manufactur-ability
Can we say in 2024 with all advancement in kmowlegability of design, manufacture, functionaly & beneficialy orchestrated earth-wide community resourcefulness, textile-ability & tayloring manufacturing experience of production implementation with availability structure(s) of provision & reasonably purposeful basic maintainance in fulness of objective achievability?
THE 5 ANSWERS :
(1) & (2) Covering Of The Lower & Upper Body's Nakedness (History, Facts & Overall Reality)
Begining with BASIC ANATOMICAL MANIFEST OF A PERSON'S BODY MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE FOR BOTH MEN & WOMEN, THAT IS WHERE THE FLESH-LY SANCTIFIED IDENTITY OF BOTH IS LOCATED CONCERNING THE WOMB & THE LOINS, the Considered "Modern Clothing Design's" lower body's Points/Paps for Full Covering of it being AT THE ANKLES AND WAIST.
The Knees now going upwards of the lower body, have been too much of a "subjected debate" for man made doctrine & theoretical construct concerning CLOTHING & COVERING OF THE BODY concerning whether a person is or isn't naked, as naked, or less naked that when covered fuply to the ankles, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY LESS CLOTHED AND MORE NAKED WITHOUT EVEN USING ANY COMMON SENSE.
Reasoning & such "debatabilities ONLY ARISE from "Standards" that are set by man with various multitudes of reasoning & reasonabilities that range in so many ways that some do not subvert to understanding that they are all towards describing or defining "less covering & more nakedness", which in turn becomes its expriential normalization & teaching as though "culture" or "fashion-able", escsping the adress of exactly what it is as said, "more nakedness & less covering".
The general beginings of concern come when the descriptiveness derives "youthfulness" from any conceptual "lessening of body covering" from the ankles to the knees, which is not necesarily anything connected to "youth", being young, or subject to being "only for children", but result of TEACHING & THE MENTIONED "EXPERIENTIAL 'NORMALIZATION' ", though anyone and everyone is admitant that shorts are shorter thsn pants and cover less of their legs, the same with skirts compared to full length dresses for women, these being "moderninzed termonologies" concerning garment fabric fashioning & taylored design to "wrap around the ligaments of the arms and legs", instead of simple "draping garmnent design" usualy identifed as "ROBES", general modern female garments of "dresses" 'fasionably' imploring the "draping" design as a "regulatory identification" for women's clothes, though there are various kinds of even modern "Robe" design FOR BOTH MEN & WOMEN, even kinds with Sleves, especialy to note those with the concerns of MULTIPLE LAYERINGS, some even multiple in any singular garment of kind(s).
The idea that less covering from either the anlkles or wrists is more "CHILD-ISH/CHILD-LIKE" comes from the truth about the basic development of the human body from birth being a baby male or female, OBVIOUSLY IDENTIFIABLE IN BIRTH AND THANKS TO TECHNOLOGY DURING CONCEPTION IN THE WOMB WITH SONO-GRAMS.
The "defencive argument only comes from a baby girl's apearance in lack of development of the chest concerning fleshly protrusion & "fully grown" breasts, but, this only by "degraded analysis", as also said INDIVIDUAL SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION ALREADY IDENTIFYABLE, THE SAME ALSO GOING FOR THE CHEST AREA EVEN IF NOT APARENT TO THE NOW CONSIDERED FULLNESS OF MATURITY WHICH HAS TO DO WITH TIME & AGE OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL FEMALE PERSON, yet it is always clesr that such is always and will always be part of their nakedness and same confines of fleshly oneness orient of their body when "fully mature", the fullmess of maturing considered by the fruit, of the loins & wombs ability to conceive, again for ACTUAL COMMON SENSE'S valueable identification, that a male baby's sexual identity IS ALSO IN NEED OF COVERING, for any thinkings of "baby clothing", there is more to their clothing than simply DIAPERS WORN ON THE LOWER BODY & NOT IN ANY WAY >>YET<< A "COVERING" OR A PURPOSED REASON FOR THE BABY'S BODILY CLOTHING EXPERIENCE, SANCTIFICATION, WARMTH & COMFORTABILITY, ALSO TO MENTION SAFETY & SECURITY FOR THEIR GROWTH FROM THE INABILITIY TO WALK, INTO THE BEGININGS & ONGOINGS OF EARLY STAGE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OF PERSON, all these AFTER consideration of Diapers/Nappies which are to help the child with draught/soil & urine/bathroom/toilet activities as they grow, ARE STILL WITH THE SAME FULL COVERING POINTS/PAPS OF THE BODY(ankles, wrists & neck), with all the above mentioned importance of warmth, comfortability, safety & security through before, when & ongoing learning to walk & all else also with all parental assistance.
[ : ****** Still To Finish ******* - You will find the finished post on the blog Partakers3.blogspot.com - The "Partakers Pt.3 Interactive Blog" : ]
by - TeQ NiQ - Kudzai Simbarashe David Murapa