Favored dermal contact with all the surroundings, hostile though it was, to the loss of sense suggested by wearing

Garments.” 124
96. Clothing-compulsiveness is incompatible with the natural patterns of nature, as expressed by every other
member of the animal kingdom. Individuals are the sole species to clothe themselves.
97. Some psychologists theorize that people developed clothes, in part, to set themselves apart from
Creatures.
Fred Ilfeld and Roger Lauer write: “Mankind’s important goal is superiority . . . and one way that he strives for it’s
through clothes. Not only do clothing safeguard and decorate, but they also give standing to the wearer, not merely with
Regard to peers but, more to the point, in relation to man’s place in nature. Clothes make a human being appear less
like an animal and more like a god by concealing his sexual organs.” 125 Lawrence Langner adds: “Modern man is a
puritan and not a pagan, and by his clothes has been capable to beat his feeling of shame in regard to his sex
organs in public, in mixed company. He has done this by transforming his basic inferiority into a feeling of
superiority, by associating himself to God in whose sexless image he claims to be made. But bring all his clothing away, and
it is clear to see that he is half-god, half-animal. He’s playing two opposing functions which contradict one another, and
the result is confusion.” 126
98. The physical barrier of clothes augments emotional barriers separating us from the natural world.
In our clothes-obsessed society, we’ve distanced ourselves so much from nature the sight of our

own natural state is often startling. Allen Ginsberg writes: “Truth may consistently surprise a little, because we’re
creatures of habit, especially in our hypermechanized, hyperindustrialized, hypermilitarized society. Any
Demonstration of nature will appear shocking.” 127
99. Lifestyles that are incompatible with the natural patterns of nature (including clothes-obsessiveness)
may be emotional damaging.
Robert Bahr writes: “Nakedness is the natural state of humankind; clothing demands a barrier between us
and God, nature, the universe, which functions to dehumanize us all.” 128 “Paradoxically,” muses Jeremy Seabrook,
“the very presence of the westerners [on nude beaches] in the south is an expression of some absence in their
Regular lives. After all, whole sectors are now devoted to empowering folks ‘to escape from it all.’ What’s it,
Just, they would like to get away from, when the iconography of their culture is promoted worldwide as the provider of
everything? Many will confess they are seeking something unavailable at home (apart from sun), something
to do with authenticity, a state of being ‘unspoilt’. . . . They have been stripped of their cultural heritage; and this is
why http://nudismpictures.net/tube/nudism/ should buy back what ought to be the birthright of all human beings: secure anchorage in parties and
rituals that attend the important instants of our human lives.” 129
100. A Naturist lifestyle is more environmentally responsible. For instance, http://purenudism2017.com/nudist/nudist-families-pussy.php of going naked
during hot, humid weather significantly reduces the need for air conditioning. Most air conditioners use huge
Numbers of http://nudenudist.com/tube/beach/nude-ukraine-beach.php , and several use coolants which are damaging to the stratospheric ozone layer.
101. Clothing is produced by environmentally reckless processes from environmentally reckless
sources.
For instance, synthetics are developed from oil; and cotton is grown with intensive pesticide-laden
agricultural techniques. Cotton constitutes half of the world’s textile eating, and is one of the most pesticidesprayed
crops on earth. Garments fabrication may additionally include chlorine bleaching, chemical dyeing, sealing
with metallic compounds, finishing with resins and formaldehyde, and electroplating to rust proof zippers, creating
toxic deposits in waste water.130
Accepted clothes requirements are arbitrary and inconsistent.
102. Clothes standards are inconsistent.
For instance, a bikini covering is accepted and even lauded on the shore, but is confined elsewhere–in a
department store, for instance. Even on the seashore, an expensive bikini is considered satisfactory, whereas knickers-
-though it covers the same number–is not.
103. Clothes requirements are arbitrarily and irrationally based on sex.131
Until the 1920s, for instance, female ankles and shins were considered erotic in Western cultures, though
men wore knickers. The Japanese considered the back of a female ‘s neck sensual, and current Middle Eastern
cultures conceal the girl’s face. During the 1991 Gulf War, female U.S. army personnel were forbidden from
wearing t-shirts that bared their arms, as it’d offend the Saudi Arabian allies. Girls (but not men) were
forced to wear full army apparel in stifling heat.132
104. Today in The United States, women’s breasts are seen as lusty and unexposable, even though they’re
anatomically identical to all those of guys except for lactation capacity, and no more or less a sexual organ.

Advertisements