What is missing? (N205: 1-3)

I have been very interested in naturism over the past 4 years.  I looked into it initially as it was a claim to how people could overcome compulsive pornography use.  Everything I have read and studied about it has said that social nudity has either neutral or positive effects on health, be it physical, mental, emotional, financial, etc.  It seems too good to be true. Not a lot of people have pointed out what negative things come as a result of embracing naturism.  

So I thought I would start a little series on my blog, one that goes over the document 205 Arguments and Observations in Support of Naturism (which I will refer to as N205) and try and find what logical fallacies exist and if there is a thread that has a bigger story behind it about any negative aspects of naturism.

Argument 1

1. There are times when clothing is physically uncomfortable. Nudity, on the other hand, is often much more comfortable.

Clothing can be physically uncomfortable for most people.  Just adding extra layers on that hold in heat can be discomfort, but some clothes also squeeze on the body providing additional discomfort.

Nudity is often more comfortable.  For most, coming home and taking off all the prepared layers provides a lot of comfort.  There are few that do not find comfort in this.

I really wanted to tear this argument apart, as it seemed to make assumptions that clothing is always uncomfortable or nudity is always more comfortable.  But it uses the phrases "There are times" and "is often" denoting a lack of absoluteness.

For me, nudity is far more comfortable than clothing.  The times I am more comfortable in clothing deal mainly with excessive heat, or during the colder times of the year.  Some activities are rougher on the skin and require additional protection.  Those times are when clothing is more comfortable.  But they are honestly few and far between.

Argument 2

2. For many activities, nudity is often far more practical than clothing.

Simplification is always better than complication.  When you are nude, there is less to carry.  There are times when clothing adds function, whether through protection, or convenience in carrying items (i.e. pockets).  Clothing does give us an outlet to express ourselves.  But it is far more practical to express ourselves through word and action than through the clothes we wear.

In addition, naturists have almost zero laundry.  I can't imagine the decrease in cost for water and electricity as well as laundry supplies. Not to mention the amount of replacement clothes.  It would still be necessary, but cost a fraction of the price because of the reduction of consumption.

Bernard Rudofsky writes: “The custom of wearing a bathing suit, a desperate attempt to recapture some of our lost innocence, represents a graphic expression of white man’s hypocrisy. For, obviously, the bathing suit is irrelevant to any activity in and under water. It neither keeps us dry or warm, nor is it an aid to swimming. If the purpose of bathing is to get wet, the bathing suit does not make us wetter. At best, it is a social dress, like the dinner jacket.” [1] Yet Americans spend $900,000,000 each year on bathing costumes. [2]

I agree that bathing suits have no practicality to them.  At best they keep excessive sun off of your back, which you can do with a good waterproof sunscreen.  Before I learned about naturism I would buy a swimsuit on trips quite frequently as I frequently forgot it.  Now I have one suit that I need to wear for everyone else's sake, but it would be nice not to have to bother lugging it around especially after it has been used.

Citations to Argument 2

[1]: With the ebbing of several body taboos after the First World War, outdoor clothes began to look less ceremonious. For the first time since antiquity, bare arms and shoulders, legs and thighs appeared in bright daylight, making exercising less sweaty. When sports degenerated into spectator sports on the one hand, and purely social gatherings such as sea bathing on the other, the human body itself became the prize exhibit, and its display eclipsed all other interests. Sports clothes assumed the role of playclothes in the true sense of the word—an indispensable accessory for that most competitive of games, flirting. Quite logically, denudation stopped short of nudity itself, for an unclothed body is less of a snare than a scantily dressed one. The custom of wearing a bathing suit, a desperate attempt to recapture some of our lost innocence, represents a graphic expression of white man's hypocrisy. For, obviously, the bathing suit is irrelevant to any activity in and under water. It neither keeps us dry or warm, nor is it an aid to swimming. If the purpose of bathing is to get wet, the bathing suit does not make us wetter. At best, it is a social dress, like the dinner jacket.  (The Unfashionable Human Body, Rudofsky, 69)

This explains how when you tease something it becomes more desirable.  Put out sexily clad women, and everyone will want to see them naked.  Put them out naked, and no one will hardly notice.  The temptation is what you can't see.

[2]: Kearney, Kevin. "Tax Swimming Suits." Nude & Natural 10.4 (1991): 37-39.

The second citation is from Nude and Natural 10.4, which I don't presently have access to. So I cannot comment on the validity of their claim of $900 million spent per year.  But it wouldn't surprise me to be true, if not more than that as the Nude and Natural article was written in 1991.

Argument 3

3. Clothing also restricts movement, and encumbers the athlete. Studies done by the West German Olympic swim team showed that even swimsuits slow down a swimmer. [3]

This is seriously fascinating to me.  It says that the human body has more potential but we limit it by wearing clothing in situations that do not make sense.

[3]: There is far more freedom and more efficiency in cutting through the water when a swimmer is not encumbered by clothing. The West German swim team trained and ran time trials in the nude to test a theory that suits slowed a swimmer down. Each participating athlete, when nude, bettered his or her time considerably. Yet, during the Olympics, they had to wear suits. Swimming or sunning nude is still condemned by many in our society. Nude participants in the Olympic contests would have shocked the sensibilities of at least some observers. (The Naked Child—Growing Up Without Shame, Smith, 92)

Now there is an issue with this a little bit, as its citation comes from The Naked Child—Growing Up without Shame, a really good book that has done some research, but, as far as I know, they do not cite their source for the story of the team. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it could be a folk tale.  It would be interesting to hear more about it.

Well there is the first 3 arguments and my thoughts around it.  Not a lot of fallacies here from what I can tell, but there are a couple of things that feel like hearsay without citations.  What do you all think? Anything I missed here? I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.  Feel free to sign in and leave a comment on it.  Thanks for reading through it.