Re: The Origin of The Cravat (Was: Are Ties Phallocarps?)

Mike Bender (
23 Nov 1995 00:10:37 GMT

In article <> (Gerold Firl) writes:

In article <48qqju$> (Joel and Lynn GAzis-SAx) writes:

>In article <>,
> (Gerold Firl) wrote:

>>And second, consider the sword as fashion-statement; it may bridge the gap
>>between codpiece and necktie.

>Gerald is obviously jumping around here, desparately seeking facts to bolster
>his idea that the tie has phallic connotations. The bottom line is "Well, men
>*have to have* some way of expressing the fact that they have penises."


I will restate the hypothesis: at some point in the human evolutionary
past, penis size became a male status-determinant which functioned as a
conflict-resolution mechanism; big dick goes first, you might say. The
necktie activates this instinctive mechanism.


If indeed, a necktie activates this instinctive mechanism, then
shouldn't we see a social preference for bigger ties? (I.e., the bigger
the tie, the better).

Also, how do we explain the fact that in our society, at least,
"macho" men are usually associated with open shirts and hairy chests
-- not with neckties?

I still contend that a better hypothesis is that neckties (actually,
anything wrapped around the neck) symbolizes the separation of the
body (i.e., impulses, desires, ...) and the mind. I.e., self-control.
This could explain why ties are so popular in business and so
unpopular with the "macho" man image.

Mike Bender

_______ __ __ ______ __
| | |__| |--.-----. | __ \.-----.-----.--| |.-----.----.
| | | <| -__| | __ <| -__| | _ || -__| _|
|__|_|__|__|__|__|_____| |______/|_____|__|__|_____||_____|__|

Triumph is just "umph" added to try.