The Science of Nudity

Both interesting articles, and the comments show much more about the attitudes expressed in the articles than I would have expected. I wonder how much of the difference is a gender-reliant difference? Just thinking about basic construction, women tend to have more need for structurally supportive garments, and it's not (clearly, given the back, neck and shoulder problems that truly large breasts can cause) a great idea to take those garments away.

Also the hygeine question kept coming up again and again and was never fully addressed by either author. Yes, perhaps sea lice can invade your bathing suit...but think about all the things that bathing suit is in turn protecting you from? And unless hygeine is already an issue, you really shouldn't be in contact with nameless fungi on your clothing.

Many of the arguments were blatantly silly, such as the carbon footprint argument, and that's something that bothers me. It seemed that one author was wishing everyone else would be naked for his convenience, because he wanted to not feel that nakedness was stigmatised, while not realising that there are plenty of reasons that people don't wander around naked that have nothing to do with "it's cold" or "I'm ashamed". The other author...well, her piece was a reaction to the piece at H+ and so didn't go too into depth on reasons to stay clothed. All in all...nothing in either article was all that convincingly science-based, and no truly good reasons for being all nude all the time (or not) were given.

It would be nice to have a concrete answer one way or the other, but even then, and no matter what it is, the majority of us will probably be keeping our clothing.

*And here's a hint. If your clothing feels "too restrictive"? Grow up, bite the bullet, and buy the proper size. Being proud of your body no matter what size you are dosen't mean wandering around with nothing on in an attempt to one up the prudes; it means embracing what you look like (including what your actual dress/pant size is) and doing your best to look your best in or out of clothing. I'm so sick and tired of all the excuses to avoid dealing with being the size/shape you actually are and either finding or constructing reasons that "I'm not, not really, I'm being repressed into shame" that I could just scream.*

To Jezebel's #6, I must add: hot tubs. Bathing suits in hot tubs are just wrong.

It's not going to go over very well in Minnesota this time of year either, but otherwise I approve.

"Get naked" proponents clearly do not do field work. you need protection from well armed plants, insects, and other dermis-damaging denizens of forest and field. Besides, where do they put their pencils? No, don't tell me.

Go about 50 miles south of Boston and today you almost could go naked. It's raining sheets of course, but the temps are in the mid to high 50's.

I am a hairy man. A hairy, hairy man.

Except in winter, when I tend to remain clothed in layers upon layers, rather than waste a lot of energy trying to heat my living space, generating tons of C02 along the way.

So, here it is, nearly the end of January, and most of my body hair has worn off around the wrists and ankles, waist and hips, and feet and calves, due to the constant presence of restrictive clothing.

My winter body hair pattern is like opposite-Farmer's-tan, but measured in hair rather than melanin. My much-reviled back hair, which only makes sense in the context of general hairiness, is still in evidence. And now you want me to get naked? I'll wait until May, thank you very much, when I am uniformly furry.

Nameless fungi on clothing. How about athletes foot? Only a problem because we wear clothing on our feet, even when it is unnecessary.

Sea lice are not a minor irritant. They result in large numbers of people, especially children, having to visit hospital emergency rooms each year. I forget exactly how many but it is a seriously large number. Prevention is easy, swim nude. What exactly do bathing suits protect you from? I am intrigued.

Clothes compulsion, and lack of knowledge of what people really look like, is a major part of the reason why people wear restrictive clothing. Should pornography really be the only way that young people can find out what people look like? No wonder there are so many body image problems.

Try comparing the teenage pregnancy rates, abortion rates and STI rates for prudish countries such as the USA with those for countries such as Denmark which make much less fuss about nudity and the body. Then think long and hard about why the differences are so enormous. Prudery is child abuse with good intentions.

Nameless fungi on clothing. How about athletes foot? Only a problem because we wear clothing on our feet, even when it is unnecessary.

What the freaking hell are you talking about? Do you know how much crap I've gotten embedded in my foot because I like to walk around barefoot? Oooo look I have a nail in my foot. Oooo look I have a thumbtack embedded in my foot.

Sea lice are not a minor irritant. They result in large numbers of people, especially children, having to visit hospital emergency rooms each year. I forget exactly how many but it is a seriously large number. Prevention is easy, swim nude. What exactly do bathing suits protect you from? I am intrigued.

Muahahahha..... Sea lice are harmless. Jelly fish on the other hand are quite dangerous and are what commonly confused as sea lice. And according to Wikipedia the best way to avoid contact with bare skin which means you probably shouldn't be naked.

"Get naked" proponents clearly do not do field work. you need protection from well armed plants, insects, and other dermis-damaging denizens of forest and field. Besides, where do they put their pencils? No, don't tell me.

There are numerous jobs where you need protection from clothes.

"Try comparing the teenage pregnancy rates, abortion rates and STI rates for prudish countries such as the USA with those for countries such as Denmark which make much less fuss about nudity and the body."

Gee, and all this time I thought it was the puritanical attitudes about actually explaining to children what sex is and how to protect yourself from the consequences of not being careful about the risks associated (disease and children, largely) that caused all that awful stuff...not the lack of seeing all your classmates naked.

Sea lice harmless????????? Try putting "sea lice emergency room" into Google and then say that. You should wear protective clothing when it provides protection, not when it causes harm.

"Gee, and all this time I thought it was the puritanical attitudes about actually explaining to children what sex is". And why do you think people are so reluctant to explain to children? Why do you think that educators are terrified to discuss with children outside of a few hours of formal sex education each year? It is all part of the same pattern. Attitudes have consequences and in this case the consequences are crystal clear. Try looking at the figures for similar western countries. Consider which countries are best, consider which are worst. It is not coincidence. The correlation between censorious attitudes and poor outcomes for body related social and health indicators is well over 97%. The causal links are too complex to go into here but they are well, if not widely, understood. The effect is very real and unless we are prepared to act on evidence instead of prejudice then we will continue to cause widespread and often serious harm to the very same young people that the censorship, both in the media and real life, is supposedly protecting.

I am the author of the Get Naked: It's Good for your brain" article. I think Malcolm has many good points to make, especially his lament that the only way teens can see naked bodies is through viewing porn. Nations that are supportive of nudity have lower unplanned pregnancies, lower STDs, and lower rape levels than puritanical societies.