David J. Hall, M. Sc. (Eng.) D.I.C.
Senior Research Engineer
P.O. Box 9487
Stanford, California 94305, USA
(415) 494 6859
6th April 1976
Skirts for Men
The advantages and disadvantages of various forms of body covering.
By David J. Hall
Ever since the human animal lost whatever fur he may have had on his skin, he has made himself comfortable by covering himself with another skin, woven cloth. Perhaps the first coverings were for warmth; or perhaps to satisfy human vanity. Today, society demands that we always cover some portions of our bodies, the weather still plays an important part in determining how much cover we use.
Clothing affects the way we move and function. When we wear a uniform, we are supposed to function according to the role signified. Airline cabin crew wear something that allow us to easily identify them so that we know who to ask for service.
However we view the concept of human individuality in practical terms, the paradox is that humans seem to have split into two species: male and female. We are similar and different in both obvious and subtle ways.
The basic question I would like to ask is this: To what extent should these differences determine the form of outer clothing we wear? And is it necessary, anyway, to make the outer clothing conform to physical and psychical differences in sex?
At what distance and by what criteria should an individual be recognised as one sex or the other? Where is the boundary between sex roles and where should the boundary exist in the forms of clothing people wear? And how should men respond to the changing sex roles of women and the way they express these changing roles in the clothing they wear?
Women are now in the roles that were formerly reserved for men and, on adopting these roles,they assume the aggressive attitudes required by these roles. This widespread role shift in society presents men with an opportunity, especially the more adventurous amongst us, to become more gentle and open by adopting different roles ourselves and changing the way they dress.
The changing roles of one sex affect the other. Perhaps it was the long hair that men began to wear in the 60s that helped promote changing attitudes in women in the seventies.
Perhaps the natural response of men confident in their sexuality, to women's changing roles and functions, and consequently their increasing assertiveness, is to wear skirts on occasion. The adoption of female roles, signified by the wearing of female clothing is a logical response to the adoption of assertive and aggressive male roles by women; it is the acceptance of it, and a welcoming of new opportunities for men and women to enter a world full of possibilities.
The question of weather men should wear skirts or not is the central question I address in this essay.
The time has come to fully examine the role of body coverings and act on the results of this examination. A revolution in body covering for men is appropriate at both a superficial and a deep level. Can we dress as individuals in this society, or must we respect local conventions and sexual roles?
Men seem to be be more restricted by clothing convention than women. Compare the shirt collar and tie uniformity of established respectable men, with the wide range of emotionally expressive fashions of respectable women. Moreover, women's fashion allows them any style of clothing a man wears.
The skirt issue is only a symbol of man's deeper restrictions. For example, men are still usually less able to discuss their deeper emotions and they still do not share their innermost feelings, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They are still, on the whole, unable to cry when they are sad, or if they give in to tears then they feel guilty about their show of emotion and of perceived weakness. This drives them towards expressing their emotions rather through anger and violence.
Consider freshly, the suitability of pants or skirts for women or men. Take into account anatomy. It's perfectly reasonable for a man to wear a skirt because of his crotch. A tight crotch cramps a man's genitals, especially when he sits down, and little allowance is made in tailoring for the male bulge. Add to this the tie around the neck and the tight collar and it seems inevitable that a man in an establishment uniform will feel up-tight and restricted and behave accordingly.
Uniforms are designed to encourage militaristic attitudes and, together with militaristic metaphors, I feel strongly that militaristic uniformity slips over into the world of commerce and the work place. Men wearing skirts, symbolising role change could help achieve the gentle revolutionary objective of rejecting codes of behaviour that smack of military aggression. Changing men's clothing options is a form of disarmament.
Women's roles have changed. They have a wide range of clothing options that signal the wider range of roles they can adopt. They graduate from West Point. They commit more crimes, they take a more active part in public life: in government, business and police work. More women smoke heavily, take drugs and get dunk. Something that men, comparatively, used to do a lot more of.
Sex discrimination is increasingly outlawed in the USA, Britain and worldwide. At present the line of the succession to the crown is to the eldest child, even if she is a female. Of course this begs the question. Are all these changes desirable?
Overall I believe that this is a healthy trend, if we can respond to it in a healthy manner. Pants are often more practical than skirts. Pants for women symbolise how women take on more responsibility in the world outside the home. It has only been approximately 90 years since Sarah Bernhardt started wearing pants. She did so at a time when women were not allowed to vote, and when moral codes for women were strict.
My first experience wearing a skirt
In late 1970, I participated in a Yoga Congress in New Delhi. The Congress convened delegates from all over the world and they arrived in their various coloured robes of different styles and presented us with many strange rituals and disciplines, with both religious and scientific foundations.
We visited Pondicherri together, farther south. Pondicherri was warm and humid. Feeling uncomfortable in such warm weather, and curious about the local dress, I found out about the 'lungi.' The lungi is two yards of cloth, usually a simple cotton print. It is wound round the waist with special neat tucks so that it looks smart and stays on.
Wearing this in Pondicherri made me feel like 'one of the boys'. And at least I was cool (without underwear); and without pant material between my legs. Ever since I have worn this at home as suitable dress for hot California days.
In other cultures men have not and do not use pants, but skirts. In ancient China, of course, men wore long robes. In Japan men may change into traditional kimonos at home - a loose robe without separate legs. African tribes like the brave Masai wear Kekois. Hawaiian men used feathers and skirt like wraps called lava-lavas. Then there is the Scottish kilt and the frilly white short skirt of the Greek warriors - battle wear.
My experiences of using a skirt in the west
The result of this full examination of body coverings, for me, is that I know wear a skirt when I choose to, and when it seems appropriate in different circumstances.
Of course, because I am a male, this is not a conventional form of attire. I have been practicing the wearing of a skirt at home. I don't remember the first occasion, but it elicited a mild chuckle from my wife and similar initial ridicule from our four sons. I had borrowed one of my wife's skirts. At nearly 6 ft tall she is just one inch shorter than me.
The skirt was the simple gathered type with a tie at one side, making it also suitable for my slightly larger waist. I must confess that I also felt a thrill at putting on this new garb, and I cannot deny the sexual content of the feeling, though I insist there is more significance to a man wearing a skirt than this feeling.
Perhaps it was similar to the feeling an explorer has when going into new territory. Wearing a skirt gave me a sense of freedom and it gave me a feeling of kinship with women. There was also the purely objective feel of the different pull of materials as I walked and the different sound it made. It was truly liberating.
I wondered at how a simple experience that every girl has could be so intriguing and charged with exploratory daring, How strong these sexual conventions are. And yet women today cross the skirt / pants border freely.
Since learning how to put on a skirt, and to move and and sit with it, I have searched for a masculine form for a single sheet of cloth wrapped around both legs. But there is nothing left to discover. There is no uniquely male form of skirt. Women have already explored all forms of this item of clothing and have even appropriated what were previously male forms, like the kilt.
I have pondered deeply, I have meditated on these sexual conventions in dress and can find no intrinsic reason for them. Certainly there is no reason at all why men and women should behave differently with respect to the clothing they wear. If we accept the idea of social equality, and of course most of us do in the west, then we should define this equality in law. The problem is that the differences between men and women are not definable, they are and will remain mysterious. Therefore neither can women's roles and men's roles be definable.
One of the signifiers of the complex nature of this equality is clothing and that is not subject to decree. Clothing and style of dress cannot be legislated, for the citizen of any free country. And this also relates to the freedom people should have in their intimate physical relations. Although there is not equality, but anatomical difference between men and women in the sex act, there should be freedom for the intimate partners to choose their roles of private sexual expression without outside social stigma and restrictions.
Our obsessive need to categorise and label
We seem to feel the need to be able to identify anyone we see, at a glance, as male or female and many of us find it difficult to observe without judgement.
Try this simple experiment some time when walking down a crowded street or in a public place. Look around at the people there and make yourself aware of how you are thinking about them. Are you categorising subconsciously: That is a male, that is a female. Do you get anxious if you can't immediately classify someone? Isn't this really an obsessive type of behaviour? Can we not see without the need to classify and label?
Why do we need to know if a figure we will probably never see again after this glance is male or female. Sex is of no consequence in a situation like this. It is compulsive behaviour. In attempting to categorise people by sex immediately we close ourselves off to the freshness and spontaneity and we restrict other people's freedom to act by projecting our expectations onto them. Living in 'confusion' rather than certainty allows relationships to develop.
The philosophical paradox of sexual division
The ultimate paradox that challenges mature understanding is the question of individual freedom and sexual equality. We divide ourselves into these separate roles, perhaps before birth, perhaps even by choice. But philosophically speaking: What is the reason for this separation if it is not to come together again in love? Many philosophers and wise people have said this, and lovers explore this thrilling paradox anew each day.
Meer baba, an Indian mystic, expresses these ideas of love and unity beautifully:
The lover and the beloved
God is love.
And love must love.
And to love there must be a beloved.
But since God is Existence, infinite and eternal
There is no one for him to love but himself.
And in order to love himself he must imaging himself
As the beloved whom he imagines he loves.
Beloved and lover implies separation.
And separation creates longing;
And longing causes search.
And the wider and more intense the search
The greater and more terrible the longing.
When longing is most intense, separation is complete,
And the purpose of the separation,
Which was that love might experience itself as Lover and Beloved,
Is fulfilled; and union follows.
And when union is attained,
The lover knows that he himself was all along the beloved,
Whom he loved and desired union with;
And all the impossible situations that he overcame
Were obstacles which he himself had placed
In the path to himself.
To attain union is so impossibly difficult
Because it is impossible to become what you already are.
Union is nothing other than knowledge,
Of oneself as the only one.
By Meer Baba
What is the value of putting men in skirts?
Is this a superficial side issue that should be shelved while we deal with weightier matters like inflation and starvation? Why would it benefit society to put men into skirts?
The importance of putting men in skirts is to help them change roles and to help free them from dress code restrictions and militaristic attire - to prompt them to adventure in gentle and non - violent ways. To help them become more attractive and make them more responsible for being beautiful - for attracting and receiving.
And where should we begin anyway? Merely through introspective meditation. By adopting political poses and learning the latest theories about society from an expert. Through getting computers to work out statistically meaningful correlations? Is the quality of prayer, theory and computation enough to change outlooks and improve the way people relate to each other?
Asking men in the west to wear skirts more often is a practical and symbolic (and therefore also sane) way of changing attitudes. I suggest that clothing is our personal, material technology on the border between the inner and outer worlds. It hangs close to our skins, skins that divide the world from us.
Clothing is under our personal control and yet, it is also in the public eye, to be shared with many others. Clothing is not s internal as the intimate bareness of the skin, but it does not encroach into another's territory either. It is the softest form of technology, and we need good soft technologies to help us work more efficiently and gently towards bringing about a better order of society.
And my own personal view is...
Let us all be beautifully arrayed, without unnecessary extravagance, but without dull conformism either, and perhaps the rest shall be righted. That is my idealistic hope: that a return to the full artistic expression of gender will help restore to man and woman a true sense of freedom, and contribute to a colorful celebration.
By David Hall
David appeared on both the Johnny Carson show and the Phil Donahue show promoting his idea and when he first came to see us in Brighton and the South of France he was looking incredibly handsome and masculine. There was a glow about David which attracted everyone to him. It was as if a light had been turned on. Even my grandfather Richard Steinhardt noticed it. Everyone could see the logic in what he was saying.
Much later, 15 years later, I went to see him in Half Moon Bay where he was living and giving rolfing sessions at home and Yoga classes at the light house, and while riding in his black Mercedes I told him what I thought his inspiration might have been.
"I think," I said to David, "that you were incredibly surprised by the reaction you got from people to this simple binary, as you put it, matter of either wrapping a cloth around both legs or two legs. I think you realised that this was a sore point and using the analogy from Rolfing, you decided that this was a place where you could give the whole of your society a bit of deep tissue massage to free it up a little."
"Yes, that's it, that's right." Said David, turning to stare at me.
The point was not what David was doing. The point was the ridiculous over the top reactions he was getting. Or the casual dismissals. These reactions that made his family uncomfortable, I am sure. David should get credit for being a pioneer here deserves his own Wikipedia entry, not only for his work in computing and cybernetics but for his passionate advocation of better, softer, technologies.
David Hall
David developed ISODATA with G.H. Ball, [1] to model cloud formation patterns and he was also responsible for working on the remote sensing of guidence systems on US ballistic missiles in the early 60s. He researched human graphical interfaces in the late 60s [2]. In 1975, (before he wrote the document above and went fully into the "soft technology" of human beings and clothing to become an expert rolfer and Yoga teacher), David was working on, among other things, Artificial Intelligence research, [3] and human-machine biofeedback devices [4].
Senior Research Engineer
P.O. Box 9487
Stanford, California 94305, USA
(415) 494 6859
6th April 1976
Skirts for Men
The advantages and disadvantages of various forms of body covering.
By David J. Hall
Ever since the human animal lost whatever fur he may have had on his skin, he has made himself comfortable by covering himself with another skin, woven cloth. Perhaps the first coverings were for warmth; or perhaps to satisfy human vanity. Today, society demands that we always cover some portions of our bodies, the weather still plays an important part in determining how much cover we use.
Clothing affects the way we move and function. When we wear a uniform, we are supposed to function according to the role signified. Airline cabin crew wear something that allow us to easily identify them so that we know who to ask for service.
However we view the concept of human individuality in practical terms, the paradox is that humans seem to have split into two species: male and female. We are similar and different in both obvious and subtle ways.
The basic question I would like to ask is this: To what extent should these differences determine the form of outer clothing we wear? And is it necessary, anyway, to make the outer clothing conform to physical and psychical differences in sex?
At what distance and by what criteria should an individual be recognised as one sex or the other? Where is the boundary between sex roles and where should the boundary exist in the forms of clothing people wear? And how should men respond to the changing sex roles of women and the way they express these changing roles in the clothing they wear?
Women are now in the roles that were formerly reserved for men and, on adopting these roles,they assume the aggressive attitudes required by these roles. This widespread role shift in society presents men with an opportunity, especially the more adventurous amongst us, to become more gentle and open by adopting different roles ourselves and changing the way they dress.
The changing roles of one sex affect the other. Perhaps it was the long hair that men began to wear in the 60s that helped promote changing attitudes in women in the seventies.
Perhaps the natural response of men confident in their sexuality, to women's changing roles and functions, and consequently their increasing assertiveness, is to wear skirts on occasion. The adoption of female roles, signified by the wearing of female clothing is a logical response to the adoption of assertive and aggressive male roles by women; it is the acceptance of it, and a welcoming of new opportunities for men and women to enter a world full of possibilities.
The question of weather men should wear skirts or not is the central question I address in this essay.
The time has come to fully examine the role of body coverings and act on the results of this examination. A revolution in body covering for men is appropriate at both a superficial and a deep level. Can we dress as individuals in this society, or must we respect local conventions and sexual roles?
Men seem to be be more restricted by clothing convention than women. Compare the shirt collar and tie uniformity of established respectable men, with the wide range of emotionally expressive fashions of respectable women. Moreover, women's fashion allows them any style of clothing a man wears.
The skirt issue is only a symbol of man's deeper restrictions. For example, men are still usually less able to discuss their deeper emotions and they still do not share their innermost feelings, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They are still, on the whole, unable to cry when they are sad, or if they give in to tears then they feel guilty about their show of emotion and of perceived weakness. This drives them towards expressing their emotions rather through anger and violence.
Consider freshly, the suitability of pants or skirts for women or men. Take into account anatomy. It's perfectly reasonable for a man to wear a skirt because of his crotch. A tight crotch cramps a man's genitals, especially when he sits down, and little allowance is made in tailoring for the male bulge. Add to this the tie around the neck and the tight collar and it seems inevitable that a man in an establishment uniform will feel up-tight and restricted and behave accordingly.
Uniforms are designed to encourage militaristic attitudes and, together with militaristic metaphors, I feel strongly that militaristic uniformity slips over into the world of commerce and the work place. Men wearing skirts, symbolising role change could help achieve the gentle revolutionary objective of rejecting codes of behaviour that smack of military aggression. Changing men's clothing options is a form of disarmament.
Women's roles have changed. They have a wide range of clothing options that signal the wider range of roles they can adopt. They graduate from West Point. They commit more crimes, they take a more active part in public life: in government, business and police work. More women smoke heavily, take drugs and get dunk. Something that men, comparatively, used to do a lot more of.
Sex discrimination is increasingly outlawed in the USA, Britain and worldwide. At present the line of the succession to the crown is to the eldest child, even if she is a female. Of course this begs the question. Are all these changes desirable?
Overall I believe that this is a healthy trend, if we can respond to it in a healthy manner. Pants are often more practical than skirts. Pants for women symbolise how women take on more responsibility in the world outside the home. It has only been approximately 90 years since Sarah Bernhardt started wearing pants. She did so at a time when women were not allowed to vote, and when moral codes for women were strict.
My first experience wearing a skirt
In late 1970, I participated in a Yoga Congress in New Delhi. The Congress convened delegates from all over the world and they arrived in their various coloured robes of different styles and presented us with many strange rituals and disciplines, with both religious and scientific foundations.
We visited Pondicherri together, farther south. Pondicherri was warm and humid. Feeling uncomfortable in such warm weather, and curious about the local dress, I found out about the 'lungi.' The lungi is two yards of cloth, usually a simple cotton print. It is wound round the waist with special neat tucks so that it looks smart and stays on.
Wearing this in Pondicherri made me feel like 'one of the boys'. And at least I was cool (without underwear); and without pant material between my legs. Ever since I have worn this at home as suitable dress for hot California days.
In other cultures men have not and do not use pants, but skirts. In ancient China, of course, men wore long robes. In Japan men may change into traditional kimonos at home - a loose robe without separate legs. African tribes like the brave Masai wear Kekois. Hawaiian men used feathers and skirt like wraps called lava-lavas. Then there is the Scottish kilt and the frilly white short skirt of the Greek warriors - battle wear.
My experiences of using a skirt in the west
The result of this full examination of body coverings, for me, is that I know wear a skirt when I choose to, and when it seems appropriate in different circumstances.
Of course, because I am a male, this is not a conventional form of attire. I have been practicing the wearing of a skirt at home. I don't remember the first occasion, but it elicited a mild chuckle from my wife and similar initial ridicule from our four sons. I had borrowed one of my wife's skirts. At nearly 6 ft tall she is just one inch shorter than me.
The skirt was the simple gathered type with a tie at one side, making it also suitable for my slightly larger waist. I must confess that I also felt a thrill at putting on this new garb, and I cannot deny the sexual content of the feeling, though I insist there is more significance to a man wearing a skirt than this feeling.
Perhaps it was similar to the feeling an explorer has when going into new territory. Wearing a skirt gave me a sense of freedom and it gave me a feeling of kinship with women. There was also the purely objective feel of the different pull of materials as I walked and the different sound it made. It was truly liberating.
I wondered at how a simple experience that every girl has could be so intriguing and charged with exploratory daring, How strong these sexual conventions are. And yet women today cross the skirt / pants border freely.
Since learning how to put on a skirt, and to move and and sit with it, I have searched for a masculine form for a single sheet of cloth wrapped around both legs. But there is nothing left to discover. There is no uniquely male form of skirt. Women have already explored all forms of this item of clothing and have even appropriated what were previously male forms, like the kilt.
I have pondered deeply, I have meditated on these sexual conventions in dress and can find no intrinsic reason for them. Certainly there is no reason at all why men and women should behave differently with respect to the clothing they wear. If we accept the idea of social equality, and of course most of us do in the west, then we should define this equality in law. The problem is that the differences between men and women are not definable, they are and will remain mysterious. Therefore neither can women's roles and men's roles be definable.
One of the signifiers of the complex nature of this equality is clothing and that is not subject to decree. Clothing and style of dress cannot be legislated, for the citizen of any free country. And this also relates to the freedom people should have in their intimate physical relations. Although there is not equality, but anatomical difference between men and women in the sex act, there should be freedom for the intimate partners to choose their roles of private sexual expression without outside social stigma and restrictions.
Our obsessive need to categorise and label
We seem to feel the need to be able to identify anyone we see, at a glance, as male or female and many of us find it difficult to observe without judgement.
Try this simple experiment some time when walking down a crowded street or in a public place. Look around at the people there and make yourself aware of how you are thinking about them. Are you categorising subconsciously: That is a male, that is a female. Do you get anxious if you can't immediately classify someone? Isn't this really an obsessive type of behaviour? Can we not see without the need to classify and label?
Why do we need to know if a figure we will probably never see again after this glance is male or female. Sex is of no consequence in a situation like this. It is compulsive behaviour. In attempting to categorise people by sex immediately we close ourselves off to the freshness and spontaneity and we restrict other people's freedom to act by projecting our expectations onto them. Living in 'confusion' rather than certainty allows relationships to develop.
The philosophical paradox of sexual division
The ultimate paradox that challenges mature understanding is the question of individual freedom and sexual equality. We divide ourselves into these separate roles, perhaps before birth, perhaps even by choice. But philosophically speaking: What is the reason for this separation if it is not to come together again in love? Many philosophers and wise people have said this, and lovers explore this thrilling paradox anew each day.
Meer baba, an Indian mystic, expresses these ideas of love and unity beautifully:
The lover and the beloved
God is love.
And love must love.
And to love there must be a beloved.
But since God is Existence, infinite and eternal
There is no one for him to love but himself.
And in order to love himself he must imaging himself
As the beloved whom he imagines he loves.
Beloved and lover implies separation.
And separation creates longing;
And longing causes search.
And the wider and more intense the search
The greater and more terrible the longing.
When longing is most intense, separation is complete,
And the purpose of the separation,
Which was that love might experience itself as Lover and Beloved,
Is fulfilled; and union follows.
And when union is attained,
The lover knows that he himself was all along the beloved,
Whom he loved and desired union with;
And all the impossible situations that he overcame
Were obstacles which he himself had placed
In the path to himself.
To attain union is so impossibly difficult
Because it is impossible to become what you already are.
Union is nothing other than knowledge,
Of oneself as the only one.
By Meer Baba
What is the value of putting men in skirts?
Is this a superficial side issue that should be shelved while we deal with weightier matters like inflation and starvation? Why would it benefit society to put men into skirts?
The importance of putting men in skirts is to help them change roles and to help free them from dress code restrictions and militaristic attire - to prompt them to adventure in gentle and non - violent ways. To help them become more attractive and make them more responsible for being beautiful - for attracting and receiving.
And where should we begin anyway? Merely through introspective meditation. By adopting political poses and learning the latest theories about society from an expert. Through getting computers to work out statistically meaningful correlations? Is the quality of prayer, theory and computation enough to change outlooks and improve the way people relate to each other?
Asking men in the west to wear skirts more often is a practical and symbolic (and therefore also sane) way of changing attitudes. I suggest that clothing is our personal, material technology on the border between the inner and outer worlds. It hangs close to our skins, skins that divide the world from us.
Clothing is under our personal control and yet, it is also in the public eye, to be shared with many others. Clothing is not s internal as the intimate bareness of the skin, but it does not encroach into another's territory either. It is the softest form of technology, and we need good soft technologies to help us work more efficiently and gently towards bringing about a better order of society.
And my own personal view is...
Let us all be beautifully arrayed, without unnecessary extravagance, but without dull conformism either, and perhaps the rest shall be righted. That is my idealistic hope: that a return to the full artistic expression of gender will help restore to man and woman a true sense of freedom, and contribute to a colorful celebration.
By David Hall
_____________________________________
David appeared on both the Johnny Carson show and the Phil Donahue show promoting his idea and when he first came to see us in Brighton and the South of France he was looking incredibly handsome and masculine. There was a glow about David which attracted everyone to him. It was as if a light had been turned on. Even my grandfather Richard Steinhardt noticed it. Everyone could see the logic in what he was saying.
Much later, 15 years later, I went to see him in Half Moon Bay where he was living and giving rolfing sessions at home and Yoga classes at the light house, and while riding in his black Mercedes I told him what I thought his inspiration might have been.
"I think," I said to David, "that you were incredibly surprised by the reaction you got from people to this simple binary, as you put it, matter of either wrapping a cloth around both legs or two legs. I think you realised that this was a sore point and using the analogy from Rolfing, you decided that this was a place where you could give the whole of your society a bit of deep tissue massage to free it up a little."
"Yes, that's it, that's right." Said David, turning to stare at me.
The point was not what David was doing. The point was the ridiculous over the top reactions he was getting. Or the casual dismissals. These reactions that made his family uncomfortable, I am sure. David should get credit for being a pioneer here deserves his own Wikipedia entry, not only for his work in computing and cybernetics but for his passionate advocation of better, softer, technologies.
David Hall
David developed ISODATA with G.H. Ball, [1] to model cloud formation patterns and he was also responsible for working on the remote sensing of guidence systems on US ballistic missiles in the early 60s. He researched human graphical interfaces in the late 60s [2]. In 1975, (before he wrote the document above and went fully into the "soft technology" of human beings and clothing to become an expert rolfer and Yoga teacher), David was working on, among other things, Artificial Intelligence research, [3] and human-machine biofeedback devices [4].
nice blog!
ReplyDeleteLas faldas y los vestidos no bifurcados con falda para los varones son UNA NECESIDAD imperativa. El pantalon es la prenda menos adecuada para un hombre. Las enefermedades modernas de los hombres, (impotencia, esterilidad, problemas de la prostata, cancer del testiculo), estan intimamente relcaioonadas con los calzoncillos ajustados, la costura central del pantalon que magulla los genitales, y la correa o cinturon que funciona como un torniquete obligando al corazon a trabajar con mayor esfuerzo, y por mala circulacion de la sangre se hacen disfuncionales el aparato digestivo, el sistema urinario, el aparato reproductor;y muchas otras molestias.
ReplyDelete