times when it really is unneeded for societal protocol or physical comfort is really to armour oneself in a way that may block

new behaviors which could introduce more healthful and rewarding alternatives; and encourage emotional
growth.” 11
12. The nudist, literally, has nothing to hide. He/she thus has less stress, a fact supported by
In the words of Paul Ableman: “Removing your clothes symbolizes ‘taking off’ culture and its own attentions.
The nudist is stripped not only of garments but of the requirement to ‘dress a part,’ of kind and display, of ceremony and all
the constraints of a complicated etiquette. . . . Farther than this, the nudist symbolically takes off an excellent weight of
Duty. By taking off his clothes, he takes off the pressing problems of his day. For the time being, he’s no
More committed to causes, opposed to this or that tendency, in short a citizen. a totally free being once
more.” 13
13. Clothing hides the natural diversity of human body sizes and shapes.
nudity, they grow up with mistakes and unrealistic expectations regarding the body predicated on one-sided or
misinformed http://www.thoun.com –for instance, from advertisements or mass media.
Because of this, breast augmentation is certainly the leading type of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. In the
1980s, American women had more than 100,000 surgeries per year to transform their breasts.14 Helen Gurley Brown,
Previous editor of Cosmopolitan, says, “I do not believe 80 percent of the girls in this nation have any idea what other
women’s bosoms appear to be. http://www.thoun.com/latest-updates/ have this idealized idea of how other people’s bosoms are. . . . My God, isn’t it
ridiculous to be an emancipated girl and not actually know what a woman’s body looks like except your own?” 15
Paul Fussell notes, by comparison, that “a little time spent on Naturist beaches will carry most women that their
breasts and hips aren’t, as they might think when alone, appalled by their mirrors, ‘unusual,’ but fairly natural,
‘abnormal’ ones belonging completely to the nonexistent creatures depicted in perfect painting and sculpture. The same
with men: in case you believe nature has been unfair for you in the sexual human body sweepstakes, spend time among the
Naturists. You will learn that every man seems roughly the same–rather modest, that’s, and that epic fixtures are not
Only extremely uncommon, they have been deformities.” 16
14. Clothing hides and consequently creates mystery and ignorance about natural body processes, such as
pregnancy, adolescence, and aging.
Stress about these natural processes than those who are never exposed to them.
Margaret Mead writes, “clothing separate us from our own bodies along with from the bodies of others. The
more society . . . muffles your body in clothes . . . and hides breastfeeding, the
more individual and bizarre will be the child’s attempts to understand, to piece together a very imperfect knowledge
of the life-cycle of both sexes and an understanding of this state of maturity of their body.” 17
Some observations on the nature of modesty.
15. Kids aren’t born with any shame about nudity. They learn to be embarrassed of their very own nudity.
16. Shame, with respect to nudity, is relative to individual scenarios and customs, not absolute.
For example, an Arab girl, ran into in a state of undress, will cover her face, not her body; she
bares her breasts without embarrassment, but considers the sight of the back of her head to be still more indecent than
exposure of her face.
throw her skirt over her head, therefore exposing what, to the Western mind, is a more embarrassing part of her
anatomy.”) In early Palestine, girls were obliged to keep their heads covered; for a woman, to be surprised
outside the house without a head-covering was a satisfactory reason for divorce.
Black for a lady to exhibit her foot, and in Japan, the back of her neck. In 18th-century France, while deep
Herr Suren, writing in 1924, noted
that Turkish girls veiled their faces, Chinese girls concealed their feet, Arab women covered the backs of the heads,
and Filipino girls considered just the navel indecent.18
The comparative character of shame is acknowledged by Pope John Paul II. “There is a particular relativism in the
definition of what’s shameless,” he writes.
Individuals . . . or to different ‘world views.’ It might equally be due to differences in outside states–in climate for
Case . . . and additionally in prevailing customs, social habits, etc. . . . In this matter there’s no exact similarity in the
behavior of particular people, even when they live in precisely the same age and exactly the same society. . . . Apparel is consistently a social
question.” 19