Re: Kat Decency

From: Ed Rudnicki <erudnick_at_pica.army.mil>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 15:59:31 EST

>>I think the word you want is "modesty".
>No, I don't this would directly apply to the question at hand. Modesty is
>more of the feelings of an individual than society as a whole, a modest Kat
>might desire to "cover up", but what if he felt otherwise? Would it be
>considered acceptable for him to stroll around MegaKat city unclothed? In
>most parts of the human world, it would not be (for a human, that is), and
>that attitude is reflected in our cartoons. The Swat Kats favoriate Kat
>cartoon character, though, generally wears nothing at all.

Well "modesty" is typically a societal norm rather than an
individual thing, and "decency" reflects the individual's adherence
(or lack thereof!) to that norm. Modesty also has a definition that
applies to individuals, but here I'm using it in the "group" sense.

For instance, in the US customs of modesty dictate that at least
some clothing be worn when in public (apart from nudist areas). An
individual appearing completely unclothed is deemed to be indecent.
Whereas in other cultures, particularly among certain aboriginal
peoples in tropical areas, full nudity is an acceptable mode of
(un)dress, that is, there is no standard of modesty, such an
individual would not be "indecent". In such a society, a more modest
(in the individual sense) individual may wear clothing, but he or
she would be exceeding the modesty (group sense) of that society.

Getting back to the Kats, clothing may not be needed for
environmental reasons, but in that highly civilized society, the
appearance/status function of clothing does apply, so I think it
would be highly unlikely that typical Kats would be walking down the
street sans clothing. I do think that atypical individuals, such as
the homeless, could exist without clothing and not violate possible
legal modesty standards, though it would likely be frowned upon.




Ed


Received on Wed Feb 21 1996 - 16:54:28 PST