Show Posts
1
General Naturism Discussion / Re: Why is public nudity illegal?
« on: January 30, 2019, 02:55:18 AM »
Hey, everyone! Long time, no see!
I hesitate to reply here - I've been silent for so long. But I have to say I responded a bit differently to the article than Bob did (thanks, jbee). While the "reasons" for clothing Ms Gwin listed are not universal, I would not dismiss all of them out of hand. Protection from sun? I accept the age-old wisdom of middle-east nomadic keepers of the flocks. Extreme heat and blistering sun are not healthy, so in that place the wearing of robes (and nothing else) blocks the sun while permitting a flow of air. I'd say that's an appropriate reason for clothes. Sure, growing up in northern Minnesota my only concern about sun exposure would come in the spring, when on the first warm day our shorts were off and our too-pale skin would burn. Sunburn is never a good thing; what we lost there is the sensibility to re-accustom our skin to the sun.
Agree on the temperature issue - when time and place suggest it, clothing can make sense. It will top out at -2F here tomorrow, a good day to stay bundled up. But the Yaghan people, who lived on Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America, wore essentially no clothing (before contact with Europeans, sigh) - so there is evidence that nude living can occur even at very low temps.
Generally, I agree that shoes are a terrible invention. However, the idea posed was that feet and hands are sometimes asked to do extreme things, so having protection at those times is good for those in an industrialized culture (not saying that's necessarily good...), even for those who have well-tempered callouses. Think of firefighters entering a building for purposes of rescue and other high-temperature situations, or warehouses where steel toes just might save one's foot from crushing. On the other hand, I also agree that we over-use gloves, keeping our hands so soft that they almost cannot do hard labor - and right now I couldn't handle a rope for more than a couple minutes without my skin wearing out, but sailors worked for hours on end with just their hands.
Decorative? Not saying they're ever better than skin, but clothing can do things skin alone can't do. It has been said that no community in history has been truly nude, but that even those who traditionally went about without covering genitals would wear beads, body paint etc. for the sake of establishing status, worship, etc. It's in our genes, I suspect. Concealing "ugly" body parts? I don't know what THAT's about.
Yes, we have been fed false information about sun exposure & cancer for far too long. A new voice of reason is being heard, though, so we can hope! As well as hope that BlueTrain's prognosis is good!
I hesitate to reply here - I've been silent for so long. But I have to say I responded a bit differently to the article than Bob did (thanks, jbee). While the "reasons" for clothing Ms Gwin listed are not universal, I would not dismiss all of them out of hand. Protection from sun? I accept the age-old wisdom of middle-east nomadic keepers of the flocks. Extreme heat and blistering sun are not healthy, so in that place the wearing of robes (and nothing else) blocks the sun while permitting a flow of air. I'd say that's an appropriate reason for clothes. Sure, growing up in northern Minnesota my only concern about sun exposure would come in the spring, when on the first warm day our shorts were off and our too-pale skin would burn. Sunburn is never a good thing; what we lost there is the sensibility to re-accustom our skin to the sun.
Agree on the temperature issue - when time and place suggest it, clothing can make sense. It will top out at -2F here tomorrow, a good day to stay bundled up. But the Yaghan people, who lived on Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America, wore essentially no clothing (before contact with Europeans, sigh) - so there is evidence that nude living can occur even at very low temps.
Generally, I agree that shoes are a terrible invention. However, the idea posed was that feet and hands are sometimes asked to do extreme things, so having protection at those times is good for those in an industrialized culture (not saying that's necessarily good...), even for those who have well-tempered callouses. Think of firefighters entering a building for purposes of rescue and other high-temperature situations, or warehouses where steel toes just might save one's foot from crushing. On the other hand, I also agree that we over-use gloves, keeping our hands so soft that they almost cannot do hard labor - and right now I couldn't handle a rope for more than a couple minutes without my skin wearing out, but sailors worked for hours on end with just their hands.
Decorative? Not saying they're ever better than skin, but clothing can do things skin alone can't do. It has been said that no community in history has been truly nude, but that even those who traditionally went about without covering genitals would wear beads, body paint etc. for the sake of establishing status, worship, etc. It's in our genes, I suspect. Concealing "ugly" body parts? I don't know what THAT's about.
Yes, we have been fed false information about sun exposure & cancer for far too long. A new voice of reason is being heard, though, so we can hope! As well as hope that BlueTrain's prognosis is good!
