, , , , ,

There are certain things that are commonly believed to be exactly opposite of the way they actually are. Since I wouldn’t want to spark debate on a side topic, let me give an example that is historic by now – geocentrism. Geocentrism is the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. We now know that we don’t really know what the center of the universe is, but are certain that the Earth is definitely not it.

One such modern misconception is, I think, involving clothes and nudity. Nudity is always criminalized on the grounds that it is sexual, perverted, ugly, etc. Clothes, they say, hide our ugliness, our perversions and our sexuality. In my opinion, this is dead wrong.

The Internet – and real life, mind you – is full of examples and tips on how to dress to emphasize a part of your body – women’s breasts, men’s muscle tone, your overall body figure, your upper torso… Women are particularly fond of apparently modifying their attributes to bump up their average grade that men commonly use to assess a woman’s (sexual) attractiveness (you can’t say you have never heard the phrase “she’s a 10”). Or do they wear padded bras because they particularly like the pressure around their chest, or high-heels because they like how their little toes get squished against the wall of the shoe? I don’t think so.

I agree that there are ways to clothe which literally just hide everything, but does that really make people less attractive? No! What it does is leave everything to imagination and when it comes to sexuality, one’s imagination is often the best turn-on. Hypothetically speaking, one could dress in ways that are truly hideous and revolting (I believe it’s called fashionAHEM, I mean…) so as to be shunned by everyone (though I think that would’ve just resulted in another clothing style and defeat the purpose), but who’d want that long-term?

While clothes do have other functions, such as protection from the elements, they are primarily used as status symbols (“Look at me, I’m rich!”), or ways to hide imperfections and emphasize the good (sexier) body parts. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that – sometimes we do want to look stunning or sexy. But with everything said, to claim that it is nudists who are perverts because for a few brief periods in our lives we refuse to partake in this madness where everyone’s always strutting their stuff in every imaginable way – that is a thought which requires a Copernican Revolution in our world cocooned in textile.

Nudity emphasizes nothing on a person’s body – the most interesting part of a naked person is their face. The only reason anyone would ever think that it is one’s genitals, or one’s torso, or one’s tits is precisely because of the sex-craze created by the fact that we regularly hide these parts from sight with clothes, making them literally the holy grail of every pervert on the face of the Earth. Just look at them salivating every time someone leaks naked photos of celebrities! (Quite popular these days, actually.) I haven’t seen those photos, but the amount of outrage in that regard is quite overwhelming when I think about it.

It’s because of clothes that the eyes of otherwise perfectly normal people first look at the naked human between the groins, rather than the face. Even in settings where people are normally clothed, I’ve noticed that a not-insignificant number of people tend to look at other people’s genital area (or women’s chest), possibly to see if they can get a hint of anything. Nudists will tell you that in nudist settings, there’s an unwritten convention to look in other people’s faces – both when speaking to them, or simply passing by. Other people’s genitals just stop being very interesting after one’s seen enough of them.

So, yes. While at least a partial removal of clothes from the genital area is required for sex, that’s about everything sex and nudity have in common. Nudists are not asexual, but their nudity is not sexual either. Clothes on the other hand…