What would creatures that don't wear clothes find attractive? (answered)

I realize that the question was answered, but I'm addressing it anyway. As I see it, humans need clothes for protection and warmth and all that stuff, and since they were wearing clothes anyway, they promptly went to using those clothes for ornamentation.

Since dragons don't need clothes for those things, I would look to the "clothes" that humans wear that are not needed for protection and warmth, and are not directly related to the things that are. For example, even a ridiculous cocktail hat is still tied to the use of clothing for practical purposes, but as far as I know, jewelry is not.

 

I mean, to attract attention, people generally wear more revealing clothing.

 

Well, I wouldn't say that "more revealing" is the primary strategy; it's just one of many.

 

That's because there is an inherent expectation that people ought to be covered/clothed

So "revealing" clothing that exposes what we've come to expect is necessary to cover has some shock value & generally draws attention to parts of our anatomy that sexually arouses or attracts others. Partly because we've been conditioned to think e shouldn't see it making it more desirable, partly because we're biologically wired to certain aspects of anatomy.

If your dragons have no need to protect their bodies from weather & terrain, or to cover aspects of their bodies for shame/propriety based on some religious/cultural beliefs, it shouldn't apply.

What you should be thinking of is why would dragons "need" clothes in the first place—which articles meet what needs, and then you can branch off into how it evolved into ornamentation.

I don't think just slapping human clothing on dragons/humanoid-dragons and expecting human cultural responses to the clothing to apply to the dragons is quite believable.

 

Nor do I. Hence the question.

 

What are they then? Fungus? Archaeobacteria? Pretty sure they're animals. Specifically,I'm pretty sure dragons are reptiles.

 

Well, if you don't consider humans animals, my dragons aren't either. In fantasy and sci-fi, there are more intelligent races than just humans, so the distinction between animal and sapient being needs to be made. My dragons are the latter.

 

There quite a lot of people that hold that humans are animals, albeit sapient ones.

There are those who believe that humans are a creature in & unto themselves, separate from the animal kingdom and therefore leaving the rest of the earth & inhabitants to human subjugation by right of intrinsic superiority & otherness

Probably helps to know where your "anthrodragons" fit in those worldviews—based on your saying interbreeding between certain different species would be "bestiality" it appeared that dragons had evolved to greater, sentient, and sapient forms, some more evolved than others. Is that incorrect?

Anyway, based on the physiology you described, what needs would arise that "clothing" or "accessories" could meet?

I'm assuming that your dragons are scaled, are they epidermal scales that are shed like lizards & snakes or are they scutes like turtles & crocodiles or the feet of birds? Do their scales help retain water?

Are your dragons warm blooded? As a large animal (12ft~) their entire body mass would seem much too large for thermoregulation, as the surface area would allow too great of heat loss. But perhaps if they are cold blooded, as they grew to great sizes and evolved in sapience, they began to rely on a form of clothing to help maintain a more stable temperature?

And then there are cultural and religious aspects to clothing & ornamentation, how that influences what to accentuate or what to cover.

These are the sorts of questions that can answers what sort of clothing and accessories they'd ultimately wear.

First think of what need would arise for your dragons, how the particular article meets that need, and then how it would alter into a form of ornamentation.

'cause off the cuff, I picture dragons in hats as humorous (because it serves no function and thus seems absurd—like adorable infants in baby hiking boots).

 

Humans are animals. Quite definitively. We are a form of ape. Apes are primates. Primates are mammals. Mammals are animals.

 

Any people who believe humans are not animals are wrong. It's not a religious terms. It's not an emotional adjective. It's a technical term that describes all large mobile complex organisms on the earth. They're all distantly related in the development of such traits. Insects, birds, mammals, reptiles, echinoderms, etc. For us not to be animals would be truly freakish. What would we be then? There's nothing else we could be, even ignoring the evidence that clearly shows we are apes. We should really stop being offended by it.

 

My post was towards the OPs question towards humans & animal relation, and not in response to your post

I intentionally civilly phrased my post the way I did because I don't care who's in what camp, but there are camps and what people believe rightly or wrongly determines how they view the world and effects endless other interpretations and actions and whathaveyou

So in his fictional world, I don't particularly care where he falls or whatever his aim, it's a consideration in how it influences his characters & culture & all else that he should be sure to bear in mind

I'm just not one to debate science & religion in a thread about fictional dragons wearing satchels, but that's just me〜

(⌒▽⌒)

Edit: I didn't mean to sound flippant about this thread topic, either (which that last line sorta came off as upon re-reading). I have stories about girls & faerie and there are absurd or irrational aspects of my stories I'm working through and trying to challenge my own assumptions & ideas

I don't want anyone to think I'm intentionally being captious, smug, or superior in anyway

 

I consider humans animals in the technical sense.

 

Yes, my dragons are reptomammals (a classification borrowed from Star Wars.) The traits they share with mammals are "pregnancy" (where the egg is formed prior to laying; more on that later) are ears instead of earholes (Khrizans only) and warm blood. On the surface they appear to have one urogenital cavity, but this cavity actually hides their distinct genitalia and fecal cavities (hence, no need for underwear as they can fully control whether or not their inner cloaca is visible, whether they need to pee or are aroused or whatever.) Khrizan gestation takes eighteen months: nine months for the egg and fetus to form, followed by the egg being laid, and nine months for the fetus to develop enough to function semi-independently and hatch, at which point it will be able to crawl, walk, and consume meat (since none of my dragon species produce milk. Later, more teeth grow in and they become omnivores like adults.)

As for bestiality, it's not based on intelligence, it's that my other dragons are physically different and should not be attractive to other dragon species. Animals (or should I say lower creatures, if we're considering humans and dragons animals) would have intelligence factored in, but not dragons.

On a side note, my dragons evolved from prehistoric dragons, which would be animals in the sense that they are incapable of language as we know it and building societies. I'd be interested in writing a book about them someday.

 

I'm not confident that human females are significantly less visual than human males - they may not look at guys in bikinis, but guys in suits, guys in jeans, sweaty guys playing basketball with their shirts off... ahem. Where was I?

 

Yep. Plus, visuals communicate personality. I'm attracted by personality, and I get cues of personality from visuals.

I've mentioned, to some people's alarm, that I have always had a crush on Jack Klugman. I find the picture in the first link below far more attractive than the one in the second link.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/twilightzone/images/2/2e/Klugman.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110515050812
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/5b/1d/cc/5b1dcc6190d972dee6ddc56693b08343.jpg

The shining muscle-clad second guy has no semblance of personality, so..meh.

I realize that this is a somewhat extreme example.

 

I'd say there IS personality in the second one--a tedious personality. He's polished himself, waxed/shaved himself, avoided tanlines, etc... that's not the behaviour of someone who's really interesting to hang out with. (of course appearances can be deceiving... we all need to earn a living, his job is being beautiful and he does his job, etc.). But if I had to choose between Klugman (even your young Klugman) and, say...

http://i737.photobucket.com/albums/xx12/Kate_Sherwood/Jericho%20chest_zps39xu9jwz.jpg

Then I know who I'd pick! And this could be the exact same model as your guy, really, but he's packaged in a way that's more appealing to me and to my imagination.

 

That seems like a rather quick judgement of the second.
Also wat. That guy? Okay...

 

I agree that your choice is more attractive than my second choice, but I think for me that's because I can imagine that there is a human being there somewhere, while my second choice doesn't really look human.

Now, I'm not commenting on the model himself--the model may be a great guy and for all I know I might find him very attractive in a casual real-life snapshot. It's the photo itself that systematically strips all personality from him. Your photo, despite not even having a full face!, has more personality. Mine is absolutely an object; yours is juuust barely a person.

Interestingly, the older Jack Klugman, in Quincy, was clearly depicted as being attractive to beautiful women, and there was no vibe of that being a joke. I think that the requirement for men to be pretty was much less of a Thing at that time. Going further back, let's look at Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, John Wayne, Fred Astaire, below. None of them are all that pretty.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTIyOTE3MDM5Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzA2MTM2._V1_UY317_CR14,0,214,317_AL_.jpg

https://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/assets/img/actor/589b09851ce40__annex-tracy-spencer-nrfpt-03.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/John_Wayne_-_still_portrait.jpg

https://www.fredastaire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Fred-Astaire.png

 

I'm slightly aligned with you. I'm definitely more often attracted to male personalities than their physique, but I don't think I see appearances informing their personalities. For me, their personalities alter their appearance.

I've found—for me personally—that I'm not genuinely attracted to a man until after I've heard him speak or seen him behave just a little. Because there are plenty of men who I can see are good looking in some capacity or another, but the moment they open their mouth I'm absolutely repulsed and their attitudes & behaviours leave them more repugnant than any physical deformities. There are others who if you showed me their pictures I wouldn't think anything of them—even think them wholly unattractive by their features & physiques—but when I see them in person there is just something in the way they smile & laugh & speak and overall just carry themselves that I find adorable or else insanely sexy.

It often makes me very uncomfortable to admit which actors I find attractive, because too frequently I'm intellectually aware most are plain, old, disproportionate, or just awkward looking—I just came to find them attractive by certains parts they('ve) play(ed) or perhaps just their own personal character & personality.


Oddly though, a woman's personality, attitude, or character will not influence my perception of her overall physical attractiveness; they are beautiful or elegant or adorable or tolerable or rather plain regardless of whether they possess positive or negative character attributes. I can find a bitch breath-takingly gorgeous but an asshole will always be unattractive whatever his face or physique.

This may be because I am not sexually attracted to women, but I'm not certain

 

And THIS is one more example of why we should be sure we're writing characters (some of whom are women) rather than A Female Character, TM. Because there's diversity among women! We do not have a hive mind!

I will shallowly drool over my hairy-chested man and you guys can have your men/women of character and personality, and we're all still Female Characters! Yay!

 

Cheers to that!

 

You understand that it's not JUST the hair I find attractive, right?

If you've got abs like his? We should talk!

 

I'm gonna want those bottom buttons undone at some point...