Favored dermal contact with all the surroundings, inhospitable though it was, to the loss of sense implied by wearing

clothes." 124
96. Clothing-compulsiveness is incompatible with the natural patterns of nature, as expressed by every other
member of the animal kingdom. Humans are the only species to clothe themselves.
97.
Critters.
Fred Ilfeld and Roger Lauer write: "Man's major aim is superiority . . . and one way he strives for it's
through clothes. Not only do clothing protect and decorate, however they also grant standing to the wearer, not just with
respect to peers but, more importantly, in relation to man's place in nature. Clothes make a human being appear less
125 Lawrence Langner includes: "Modern man is a
puritan and not a pagan, and by his garments has been capable to overcome his feeling of shame in relation to his sex
organs in public, in mixed company. He's done this by transforming his fundamental inferiority into a sense of
superiority, by associating himself to God in whose sexless picture he asserts to be made. But bring all his clothing off, and
It's plain to see that he is half-god, half-creature. He is playing two opposing parts which contradict one another, and
the result is confusion." 126
98. The physical barrier of garments fortifies emotional barriers separating us from the natural world.

In our clothing-obsessed society, we have distanced ourselves so much from nature that the sight of our
own natural state is often startling. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/nudist.html writes: "Truth may constantly surprise a little, because we're
creatures of habit, especially in our hypermechanized, hyperindustrialized, hypermilitarized society. Any
presentation of nature will appear shocking." 127
99. Lifestyles which are incompatible with the natural patterns of nature (including clothes-obsessiveness)
may be psychological damaging.
Robert Bahr writes: "Nakedness is the natural state of humankind; garments demands a barrier between us
and God, nature, the universe, which functions to dehumanize us all."
everyday lives. After all, whole industries are now dedicated to enabling people 'to escape from it all.' What is it,
Just, they wish to get away from, when the iconography of their culture is promoted internationally as the provider of
everything? https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/beach-girl.html will confess they're trying to find something not available at home (apart from sun), something
to do with authenticity, a state of being 'unspoilt'. . . . They've been stripped of their cultural heritage; and this is
why they need to 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. For example, the the alternative of going nude
during hot, humid weather considerably reduces the need for air conditioning. Most air conditioners use tremendous
Numbers of energy, and lots of use coolants which are damaging to the stratospheric ozone layer.
101. Clothes is produced by environmentally irresponsible procedures from environmentally reckless
sources.
For example, synthetics are developed from oil; and cotton is grown with intensive pesticide-loaded
agricultural techniques. Cotton represents half of the entire world's textile consumption, and is among the most pesticidesprayed
crops on the planet. Clothing fabrication may also contain chlorine bleaching, chemical dyeing, sealing
with metallic compounds, finishing with resins and formaldehyde, and electroplating to rust proof zippers, creating
Hazardous deposits in waste water.130
Accepted garments requirements are arbitrary and inconsistent.
102. Clothes standards are inconsistent.
For instance, a bikini covering is accepted and even lauded on the beach, but is confined elsew here --in a
department store, for instance. Even on the seashore, an expensive bikini is considered acceptable, whereas panties-
-though it covers the same number--isn't.
103. Clothes conditions are arbitrarily and irrationally based on sex.131
Until the 1920s, for example, female ankles and shins were considered sexual in Western cultures, though
men wore knickers. The Japanese considered the back of a lady 's neck sensual, and modern Middle Eastern
cultures conceal the girl's face. During the 1991 Gulf War, female U.S. army staff were forbidden from
wearing t shirts that bared their arms, as it'd 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 sensual and unexposable, though they're