|
|
Re: The Origin of The Cravat (Was: Are Ties Phallocarps?)
spulla@ivory.trentu.ca
Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:52:22 GMT
In article <48f49l$qi4@bump.traffic.is>, lennart@bump.traffic.is (Lennart Regebro) writes:
>In article <48arqu$9ao@news.cc.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ucf.edu says...
>>
>
>>Ties are certainly taking over the world. Only arabs consistently
>>eschew them. Even Castro wore a tie in his recent UN visit.
>>Ties must be very primitive then, connecting to some limbic
>>level in our brains.
>
>No, it's just because the western culture is taking over the world. You don't
>see ties used with Arabic clothes, for example. The *tie* isn't taking over,
>the *suit* is.
>
>If the tie was of such importance, it would not be hidden beneath the coat or
>jacket. The suit is taking over, because the western world is taking over, and
>the tie is more common than the bowtie, because it looks better and isn't in
>the way. (My experience).
>
>It still is clearly phallic in it's nature, of course, but since not all
>culture has a phallic symol in it's mail clothing, I don't thing it has such a
>deep symbolic meaning.
>
Interesting that the tie as a phalic symbol would come up. Perhaps it is
because we live in a male dominant world and males must asert their maleness
through wearing ties...
|