clothes.” 124
96. Clothes-compulsiveness is incompatible with the natural patterns of nature, as expressed by every other
member of the animal kingdom. Humans are the sole species to clothe themselves.
97. Some psychologists theorize that individuals developed garments, in part, to set themselves apart from
Fred Ilfeld and Roger Lauer write: “Mankind’s major goal is superiority . . . and one manner that he strives for it is
through clothes. do clothing protect and decorate, however they also give standing to the wearer, not simply with
Esteem to peers but, more importantly, in relation to man’s place in nature. Clothes make a human being seem 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 overcome his feeling of shame in regard to his sex
organs in public, in mixed company. He’s done this by transforming his basic inferiority into a feeling of
superiority, by associating himself to God in whose sexless picture he maintains to be made. But bring all his clothes away, and
it is plain to see that he is half-god, half-animal. He’s playing two opposing roles which contradict one another, and
the end result is confusion.” 126
98. The physical barrier of clothing bolsters mental barriers dividing 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 usually 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 tends to appear shocking.” 127
99. Lifestyles that are incompatible with the natural patterns of nature (including clothing-obsessiveness)
may be emotional damaging.
Robert Bahr writes: “Nakedness is the natural state of humankind; clothes demands a barrier between us
and God, nature, the universe, which functions to dehumanize us all.” 128 “Paradoxically,” muses Jeremy Seabrook,
“the very existence of the westerners [on nude beaches] in the south is an expression of some absence in their
Regular lives. After all, whole industries are now dedicated to empowering folks ‘to get away from it all.’ What’s it,
precisely, they want to get away from, when the iconography of their culture is marketed internationally as the provider of
everything? Many will declare they are trying to find something unavailable at home (apart from sunshine), something
to do with authenticity, a state of being ‘unspoilt’. . . . They have been stripped of their cultural heritage; and this is
why they must buy back what ought to be the birthright of all human beings: secure anchorage in parties and
rituals that attend the significant moments of our human lives.” 129
100. A Naturist lifestyle is more environmentally accountable. As an example, the the alternative of going nude

during hot, humid weather significantly reduces the need for air conditioning. Most air conditioners use massive
Numbers of energy, and several use coolants which are damaging to the stratospheric ozone layer.
101. Clothes is produced by environmentally irresponsible procedures from environmentally irresponsible
For example, synthetics are developed from oil; and cotton is grown with intensive pesticide-filled
agricultural techniques. Cotton represents half of the planet ‘s textile consumption, and is among the most pesticidesprayed
crops on earth. Clothing fabrication could also comprise chlorine bleaching, chemical dyeing, sealing
with metallic compounds, finishing with resins and formaldehyde, and electroplating to rustproof zippers, creating
Hazardous deposits in waste water.130
Accepted clothes conditions are arbitrary and inconsistent.
102. Clothing standards are inconsistent.
For example, a bikini covering is accepted and even lauded on the shore, but is restricted elsewhere–in a
department store, for instance. Even on the beach, an expensive bikini is considered okay, whereas underwear-
-though it covers the same amount–is not.
103. Clothing requirements are arbitrarily and irrationally based on gender.131
Until the 1920s, for example, female ankles and shins were considered sensual in Western cultures, though
men wore knickers. The Japanese considered the back of a lady ‘s neck sexual, and current Middle Eastern
cultures hide the woman’s face. During the 1991 Gulf War, female U.S. army employees were prohibited from
wearing t-shirts that bared their arms, since it would violate the Saudi Arabian allies. Girls (but not men) were
forced to wear full army dress in stifling heat.132
104. Today in The United States, women’s breasts are seen as erotic and unexposable, although they’re
anatomically identical to those of guys except for lactation capacity, and no more or less a sexual organ.