Is clothing overrated?

N1KF · 2017-03-27 17:45:39

Clothing was once needed. Back when people didn't have warm and secure houses, you needed something to protect yourself with. Nowadays, that need no longer exists most of the time, yet many people have become so attached to clothing that they can't get rid of it. There are even cases where it's beneficial not to wear clothing (swimming, for example), yet lots of people would freak out at the thought.

Clothing is not a natural desire. You don't see babies born with clothes, or the desire to wear it. It's only after being taught to be afraid and shameful of the human body that people care. It's treated as if it's going to traumatize you when you see it! And when people do see it, it's usually degraded to unhealthy eye candy. This ends up causing insecurity in lots of people, as many of the bodies they see are unrealistic. There are also sexist double standards (involving the nipples, mainly) that I'm not even going to go into.

Master1

Different55 · 2017-03-27 17:50:47

N1KF wrote:

Clothing was once needed. Back when people didn't have warm and secure houses, you needed something to protect yourself with. Nowadays, that need no longer exists most of the time

Most people leave their houses on a very, very regular basis.

TaskManager, 32OrtonEdge32dh, Ratburntro44, Raphe9000, Onjit, LukeM, Dencc, Evilbunny, Swarth100, 1448, skullz17, mrjawapa

N1KF · 2017-03-27 17:56:23

Different55 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
Clothing was once needed. Back when people didn't have warm and secure houses, you needed something to protect yourself with. Nowadays, that need no longer exists most of the time
Most people leave their houses on a very, very regular basis.

Only normies leave their house more than two days a week.

Hostage

mutantdevle · 2017-03-27 18:15:00

If humans do get over the awkwardness of being naked around one another, there still remains the awkwardness of seeing someone visibly aroused or even getting aroused in public more easily yourself. Though, I don't think being aroused would be a problem anymore as once the body becomes a commonly seen thing it would likely no longer become something special and arousing. I like having the ability to roam my house naked as a luxury rather than an expectation.

Furthermore, there will be the added problem of trying to define sexual assault, would simply accidentally knocking into someone become enough evidence to be arrested? I think clothes were created more a sense of privacy rather than for warmth. There is evidence to suggest that prehistoric humans used to skin animals as well as tree sap and branches to craft forms of underwear to cover up the crotch and behind (though no evidence of anything such as bras as breast feeding wasn't exactly something that was shamed and was seen as essential). It is in human nature to cover up as all humans have a natural sense of privacy.

One thing I do think is overrated though is fashion. Screw that. I will wear whatever I am comfortable in and not what society deems is cool and fashionable.

N1KF, 1448

N1KF · 2017-03-27 18:25:49

Devlin wrote:

If humans do get over the awkwardness of being naked around one another, there still remains the awkwardness of seeing someone visibly aroused or even getting aroused in public more easily yourself. Though, I don't think being aroused would be a problem anymore as once the body becomes a commonly seen thing it would likely no longer become something special and arousing.

Naturist/nudist communities already deal with that. From what my research tells me they usually ignore it until it goes away.

Furthermore, there will be the added problem of trying to define sexual assault, would simply accidentally knocking into someone become enough evidence to be arrested? I think clothes were created more a sense of privacy rather than for warmth.

That makes sense, which is why I made my original post vague enough to refer to nudity in general rather than public nudity in particular. Naturist/nudity communities are usually small and private enough that troublemakers are easily noticed, but you can't really apply that for society that as a whole. If society were clothing-optional, you also need to consider that some may still choose to wear clothes. (I imagine "don't walk around nude at night" would become a common safety guideline)

mutantdevle

Tomahawk · 2017-03-27 19:30:39

The transition to nudism would be difficult. For a start there's those pesky 'indecent exposure' laws, and then the fashion industry would do everything in their power to oppose the change so they could continue selling clothes.

There's not many places where wearing nothing but shoes would be practical for a significant portion of the year. You'd wear clothes against the cold or against sunburn (no, you can't sunscreen your own back), and if it was raining or snowing you'd probably wear something waterproof to avoid the inconvenience of having to dry yourself. Hygiene is also an issue - while hygiene standards would definitely go up, imagine the state of public transport if nobody wore underwear or trousers.

As public nudity of children would be restricted, you'd still be teaching young people that wearing clothes is normal and expected, and so they'd likely continue to wear clothing once it became "safe", "legal" or "acceptable" for them not to do so.

Lastly, uniform. How do people distinguish themselves without clothes? - Hats? Armbands? Tattoos? Jewelry? Even if this theoretical society was a totalitarian one that enforced nudity, or was a radically altered society where appearance was immaterial, a large proportion of people would still wear something (and not necessarily by choice) in order to stand out. If clothing was only optional but people still judged each other by appearance, wearing nice clothes would be a simple way to look more appealing.

kubapolish, 1448

Ratburntro44 · 2017-03-27 20:47:11

for a very significant portion of the year if i went outside without clothes i would die
also, for an even larger portion of the year, if i kept my house to a level where it was comfortable without clothes i would have a very large heating bill

Onjit, hummerz5, LukeM, Hostage

Abelysk · 2017-03-27 21:26:43

My underparts are sensitive to temperature so, no. Clothing exists for comfort and health.

Also for some reason I'm envisioning you nude at home typing this thread out to defend your stance. XD

TaskManager · 2017-03-27 21:30:40

Tomahawk wrote:

Lastly, uniform. How do people distinguish themselves without clothes?

nude warfare, i like that
naked ISIS and US army bois running around shooting eachother

N1KF · 2017-03-27 21:37:36

Tomahawk wrote:

The transition to nudism would be difficult.

Before I get any more questions about this from people in this topic I'm not saying we should live in a society where everybody is always clothes-free, as that would probably create lots of major problems that would take a major shift in that society as a whole to fix. I'm not even suggesting a society where everybody accepts public nudity, but rather, one where nudity is less taboo whatever that may mean. I'm still willing to consider that idea though.

If society were to "transition" it would have to be done slowly, rather than a sudden flip which would alienate lots of people. This means that there would be less social problems about the transition at once, since they get solved before people move onto other issues.

There's not many places where wearing nothing but shoes would be practical for a significant portion of the year. You'd wear clothes against the cold or against sunburn (no, you can't sunscreen your own back), and if it was raining or snowing you'd probably wear something waterproof to avoid the inconvenience of having to dry yourself.

You're right. I imagine if nudity were accepted in society, people would only do so in reasonable temperatures. What you are suggesting would limit freedom, when in reality, less laws against nudity would only increase the freedom of what to wear.

Hygiene is also an issue - while hygiene standards would definitely go up, imagine the state of public transport if nobody wore underwear or trousers.

In naturist communities people often use personal towels to sit on, meaning that sweaty seats wouldn't be too much of a problem. Nudity would also decrease the amount of sweat though in general, I guess, as peoples' bodies would be properly exposed to air. That still wouldn't put an instant stop all the hygiene issues though.

As public nudity of children would be restricted, you'd still be teaching young people that wearing clothes is normal and expected, and so they'd likely continue to wear clothing once it became "safe", "legal" or "acceptable" for them not to do so.

You're right that it would give off unfortunate implied messages, perhaps even more so than many societies' current view of public nudity. However, I'm not sure if your logic works out that well. If we applied that logic, it should be illegal to take children in public because somebody may choose to murder them.

Of course, there are also other factors to consider. For example, it's a lot easier to prove that somebody was murdered than to prove that a person was physically abused with nobody around to see it.

Kefka wrote:

My underparts are sensitive to temperature so, no.

So, you're saying that you're fine with the way modern societies view clothing just because your body's sensitive to temperature? Okay then

Clothing exists for comfort and health.

Not everybody feels more comfortable wearing clothes.

Health isn't an issue unless you're in public, a bushy forest, a cave, an extreme temperature, around somebody sick, doing some dangerous task, or cooking with hot liquid. Aside from being in public, most of those would only be minor problems.

Tomahawk · 2017-03-28 00:21:37

What are you arguing for? Are you pro-nudity because you're against clothing? - because it seems that what you're really against is body-shaming, unrealistic expectations, the compulsion to conform to standards of dress and so on - i.e the inevitable by-products of an influential fashion industry created by a profit-driven society.

N1KF

2017-03-28 00:35:44

I know you're somewhat introverted and might possibly be in the spectrum, but you seriously need help N1KF

I don't think it's healthy at this point

Onjit, Hostage, Pingohits, 1448, Xfrogman43, skullz17

N1KF · 2017-03-28 00:52:57

Tomahawk wrote:

What are you arguing for? Are you pro-nudity because you're against clothing? - because it seems that what you're really against is body-shaming, unrealistic expectations, the compulsion to conform to standards of dress and so on - i.e the inevitable by-products of an influential fashion industry created by a profit-driven society.

That makes sense, but I think there's an even larger reason:

There's a certain other huge industry, one that makes media feeding off of peoples' shallow and lustful desires for sexuality. I'm not even going to mention its name here. Even when people try to pretend they're modest on the outside, they usually just end up being perverted in the end. So, what can be done about it? I think the best idea would be not to cover sexuality by calling shameful and ugly, but to consider it just the opposite—something beautiful to respect.

Both reasons behind nudity being taboo (peoples' obsession with fashion and looking good, as well as flawed views on sexuality) are large problems in society. Making nudity more acceptable would address both of these, and hopefully improve the world even if just a little bit.

0176 wrote:

I know you're somewhat introverted and might possibly be in the spectrum, but you seriously need help N1KF
I don't think it's healthy at this point

Wow I wanted to use the Internet to ignore my own personal problems and you're ruining it for me.

XxAtillaxX · 2017-03-28 01:02:41

I wouldn't have any issues with it myself personally, although I'm fairly biased since I find already everyone unattractive in person.
I'm sure there would be concerns over potential societal repercussions when allowing for nudism, however I would question whether they're truly negative.

It isn't all too uncommon though, as there are already countries and even states within the United States that allow for public nudity.
Vermont for example, allows for nudity with the exception of sunbathing in city parks as the article mentions.

I haven't seen the hypothetical issues detractors often make against nudism come to fruition, as with scarring the children (I think they'd probably laugh, rather than be scarred.), nor increased rape statistics and the like.

N1KF

N1KF · 2017-03-28 01:08:45

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I haven't seen the hypothetical issues detractors often make against nudism come to fruition, as with scarring the children (I think they'd probably laugh, rather than be scarred.), nor increased rape statistics and the like.

Perhaps that's because public nudists are rare, so related issues would be more rare as a result.

2017-03-30 07:58:37

N1KF wrote:

There's a certain other huge industry, one that makes media feeding off of peoples' shallow and lustful desires for sexuality. I'm not even going to mention its name here. Even when people try to pretend they're modest on the outside, they usually just end up being perverted in the end. So, what can be done about it? I think the best idea would be not to cover sexuality by calling shameful and ugly, but to consider it just the opposite—something beautiful to respect.

Won't that just intensify the problem more? Right now, people abstain from talking about this industry in public. If nudity was, as you said, something respectable, more people would join the industry and more and more people would become enslaved to the industry.

Addiction is real. Take alcoholism for example. It's not looked down upon by many communities around the world. Brewers have earned lots of fame and respect for creating popular varieties of alcoholic beverages. That promotes them and encourages them to make more bottles of drink, and this results in addiction.

Nudity is fine left just the way it is right now. Don't walk around naked. Was that hard?

N1KF · 2017-03-30 17:20:52

1448 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
There's a certain other huge industry, one that makes media feeding off of peoples' shallow and lustful desires for sexuality. I'm not even going to mention its name here. Even when people try to pretend they're modest on the outside, they usually just end up being perverted in the end. So, what can be done about it? I think the best idea would be not to cover sexuality by calling shameful and ugly, but to consider it just the opposite—something beautiful to respect.
Won't that just intensify the problem more? Right now, people abstain from talking about this industry in public. If nudity was, as you said, something respectable, more people would join the industry and more and more people would become enslaved to the industry.

How did you get to that conclusion?

The reason why theft and violence upon innocents is so looked down to in most societies is because they are publicly criticized and shamed. Right now, the main critical attitude towards that industry is "ignore it and hopefully people won't grow up to be consume it", which usually fails. The people associated with those criticisms are extremists on both sides, both conservatives and feminists, which scares people away from that argument even more. Since there aren't any other vocally popular anti-**** arguments, people become enslaved to the industry anyway.

Hiding or prohibiting something tends to make it more tempting and addictive.

mutantdevle

Tomahawk · 2017-03-30 20:49:02

Weh?

In the large majority of cases people have a very clear choice to make about whether to join that industry.

You should really consider the irony - or hypocrisy - of questioning the taboo we have regarding nudity but enforcing the taboo regarding that industry. I could argue that it's a job like any other, and to be prejudiced against it means you should also be prejudiced against nudity because the roots of the two prejudices are similar.

N1KF · 2017-03-30 21:05:09

Tomahawk wrote:

In the large majority of cases people have a very clear choice to make about whether to join that industry.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You should really consider the irony - or hypocrisy - of questioning the taboo we have regarding nudity but enforcing the taboo regarding that industry. I could argue that it's a job like any other, and to be prejudiced against it means you should also be prejudiced against nudity because the roots of the two prejudices are similar.

**** is the deliberate sexualization of the human body for shallow entertainment.
Casual nudity is the acceptance of the human body for comfort and convenience.

Those are two very different takes on the same issue.

XxAtillaxX · 2017-03-31 06:04:18

I can definitely see both sides of the argument, although at the end of the day I tend to side with libertarian social views, which essentially amounts to live and let live lawfully.
I've always lived my life not finding strangers attractive, so I wouldn't be affected by this personally.

I think from a purely biological standpoint, you'd reasonably expect an inclination towards it in mate selection.
I think the clothing of today tends towards being more revealing, as compared to decades past, so there's a likelihood there.

N1KF wrote:

Perhaps that's because public nudists are rare, so related issues would be more rare as a result.

I'm not a historian however I would speculate that there wasn't any significant impact with the Greeks.
In similarity with present day, historically nudism was reserved for special occasion, robes were to be removed during dancing, being designed such to be removed in one piece.

N1KF · 2017-03-31 06:15:57

0176 wrote:

I know you're somewhat introverted and might possibly be in the spectrum, but you seriously need help N1KF
I don't think it's healthy at this point

Since I originally only responded to this post with a joke, I think I'll write a serious response now:

I feel like there's lot of potential discussion that could have branched off from your opinions (and the six other people that wooted you), but instead, you write a post based off pure instinct with no context for your thoughts at all. We're in the Debates section, where reconsidering some difficult topics—like the basic building blocks of society—should be in encouraged. Why exactly do you feel that way?

Abelysk · 2017-03-31 18:43:13

N1KF wrote:

So, you're saying that you're fine with the way modern societies view clothing just because your body's sensitive to temperature? Okay then

I mean you don't wander into Antarctica naked. Plus clothing prevents your body from absorbing too much sun radiation.

Pyromaniac · 2017-04-01 00:57:30

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I find already everyone unattractive in person.

Shocker

Tomahawk · 2017-04-01 03:35:55

OK, instead of repeating points that have already been ignored, I'm gonna nitpick the post that started this strange exercise in selective logic.

N1KF wrote:

Clothing was once needed.

Clothing is still needed. Sunburn, cold, a sense of increased security, general protection against bugs, minor injuries and dirt, identification - etc.

N1KF wrote:

Back when people didn't have warm and secure houses, you needed something to protect yourself with. Nowadays, that need no longer exists most of the time, yet many people have become so attached to clothing that they can't get rid of it.

People leave their warm and secure houses. The need for clothing still exists most of the time if you're (for example) a student or a working adult.

N1KF wrote:

There are even cases where it's beneficial not to wear clothing (swimming, for example), yet lots of people would freak out at the thought.

In what cases is it beneficial not to wear clothing? - for example, why is it beneficial to swim without clothes?

N1KF wrote:

Clothing is not a natural desire. You don't see babies born with clothes, or the desire to wear it. It's only after being taught to be afraid and shameful of the human body that people care.

Never go full retard. By that logic I could argue: You don't see babies born with a good education, or the desire to have one. It's only after being taught to be shameful of low intelligence that people care.

When early humans wore animal skins, was that not a natural desire? The need for clothing as protection may have lessened, but it's still present.

N1KF wrote:

It's treated as if it's going to traumatize you when you see it!

While nudity might be treated that way in terms of the laws against it, I don't think that many people are genuinely traumatised by the sight of a naked person. Except maybe those taught to be traumatised, but clothing itself isn't the issue there.

N1KF wrote:

And when people do see it, it's usually degraded to unhealthy eye candy.

Would you prefer to desexualise the human race so that nudity only draws attention because it's not commonly seen? There's nothing inherently noble about nudity for the label "eye candy" to be degrading.

N1KF wrote:

This ends up causing insecurity in lots of people, as many of the bodies they see are unrealistic.

Advertising and pr0n show people those unrealistic bodies. Clothing is barely relevant in that other industry, and seems to be almost secondary in the kind of advertisements that really promote impossible body standards.

N1KF wrote:

There are also sexist double standards (involving the nipples, mainly) that I'm not even going to go into.

I approve of 'free the nipple', but obviously that's only because I'm so corrupted by clothing that I'd appreciate the unhealthy eye candy.

Nah, I agree with you there regarding unfair double standards, but that issue again isn't really caused by clothing itself.

N1KF · 2017-04-01 06:53:47

I'm kind of rushing this to go to bed and I don't have time to proofread and contemplate this anymore so I may have messed something up.

Tomahawk wrote:

OK, instead of repeating points that have already been ignored

Most points in this topic are less about the attitude towards nudity as a whole, but rather, a clothes-free society. While I welcome that discussion, it's not the main point I'm trying to get to. My point is that many people seem to have an odd phobia of nudity.

Instead of discussing grand claims and assumptions about "society" as a whole, one issue that hasn't even been brought up is censorship. Alright, you can see yourself nude, but to see some digital image of somebody nude, you have to be eighteen or older. I'm not going into details unless I get asked for it, because I feel that the extreme amount of nudity censorship in Western societies should be pretty obvious.

I'm gonna nitpick [...]

Wow you're stealing my role.

Clothing is still needed. Sunburn, cold, a sense of increased security, general protection against bugs, minor injuries and dirt, identification - etc.

Sunburn and coldness are only issues outside in some weather. I addressed this in a post above so you may want to check it out. Bugs and dirt usually aren't that much of an issue in cities and (especially) cars and buildings. Let's put this all to the test! In a worst case scenario, we can assume that a full-time nature worker spends at least one-third of their week in a city, car, or building. That seems like quite a bit of time, right? I think it's safe to say that the average person in a developed country spends most of their week in a city, car, or building.

Sense of increased security is indeed a concern. However, this sense would decrease if nudity were acceptable in society. We don't walk around nervously because we lack thick layers of armor, do we?

Minor injuries aren't a common part of life (or maybe it's because I rarely go outside). I can't think of many that are, perhaps maybe an accident involving hot/sharp tools, (in which case, yeah, you should wear some clothing) or tripping. If you trip, the most vulnerable body parts are your knees and nose. People casually walk around without long pants and masks, so people must not consider it much of an issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by identification.

A long time ago, fighting wild animals and exploring dangerous areas was a common thing people did. None of your examples compare to that. Many of these are more of just conveniences than actual needs. Clothing's purpose is greatly exaggerated to the point where any other states (such as nudity) is considered horribly shameful and ugly.

In a safe home, there is no need for clothing that isn't psychological or social. Most people live in safe homes (in industrially advanced societies, which I assume is mainly what we're talking about).

This also addresses a later point in your post:

People leave their warm and secure houses. The need for clothing still exists most of the time if you're (for example) a student or a working adult.

In what cases is it beneficial not to wear clothing? - for example, why is it beneficial to swim without clothes?

Getting water and sand out of a swimsuit is inconvenience. Additionally, I imagine water against your bare body would be a lot more comfortable than having wet cloth constantly attached to your body. Swimsuits (mainly for women) in Western societies are getting more and more revealing to the point where you may as well just go nude. Also, swimming trunks tend to be baggy.

By that logic I could argue: You don't see babies born with a good education, or the desire to have one. It's only after being taught to be shameful of low intelligence that people care.

You're right, they aren't. I phrased that statement without putting much thought into the details, so let me put it in a less exaggerated way: children or babies don't have a desire to wear clothes unless they're told to.

The reason children don't like education is because most society's ways of schooling (remembering and writing numbers and facts on pieces of papers, several hours a day several days a week to get judged by those above you) is unnatural and uninuitive. Children, however, have a natural desire to learn. That's why they ask so many questions.

People take something simple and pure, then make unnaturally complex. That's a repeating pattern in the world.

While nudity might be treated that way in terms of the laws against it, I don't think that many people are genuinely traumatised by the sight of a naked person. Except maybe those taught to be traumatised, but clothing itself isn't the issue there.

Yeah you're right. That was an exaggeration.

▼CONTENT WARNING: Sexual stuff mentioned

I agree with you there regarding unfair double standards, but that issue again isn't really caused by clothing itself.

I strongly believe that it's one of the major factors, even if not the main cause.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-03-27 17:45:39

Is clothing overrated?

#2 2017-03-27 17:50:47

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#3 2017-03-27 17:56:23

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#4 2017-03-27 18:15:00

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#5 2017-03-27 18:25:49

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#6 2017-03-27 19:30:39

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#7 2017-03-27 20:47:11

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#8 2017-03-27 21:26:43

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#9 2017-03-27 21:30:40

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#10 2017-03-27 21:37:36, last edited by N1KF (2017-03-27 21:50:56)

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#11 2017-03-28 00:21:37

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#12 2017-03-28 00:35:44

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#13 2017-03-28 00:52:57, last edited by N1KF (2017-03-28 00:57:52)

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#14 2017-03-28 01:02:41

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#15 2017-03-28 01:08:45

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#16 2017-03-30 07:58:37

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#17 2017-03-30 17:20:52

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#18 2017-03-30 20:49:02

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#19 2017-03-30 21:05:09

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#20 2017-03-31 06:04:18

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#21 2017-03-31 06:15:57

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#22 2017-03-31 18:43:13, last edited by Abelysk (2017-03-31 18:43:40)

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#23 2017-04-01 00:57:30

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#24 2017-04-01 03:35:55, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-04-01 03:39:04)

Re: Is clothing overrated?

#25 2017-04-01 06:53:47

Re: Is clothing overrated?

Board footer