Popular renderings dress her in thick, reddish-brown fur, with her face, hands, feet and breasts peeking out of denser thickets.This hairy picture of Lucy, it turns out, might be wrong.Technological advancements in genetic analysis suggest that Lucy may have been naked, or at least much more thinly veiled.
Those living people I was talking about have been depicted the same ways. They mostly show such people clothed because showing what they actually look like is too much. Even the link I gave, there is one photo where you can see a penis. Every other photo is taken in ways where penises are hidden.
We don’t need to go to a non-human to show examples of this when it’s done to humans who eschew clothing already.
So you’d rather for them to have written a different article, with similar substance, but not [as thoroughly] related to their area of study?
No, I’m just not really on board with this one. As I said.
I don’t care what articles Ms. Magazine decides to publish. It’s not my magazine.