Clean!

Sure, clothing protects us. That's no excuse to be forced to wear it at times when it actually causes harm not only for the wearer, but for those around him. Clothing does little to prevent the spread of diseases and may, in fact, contribute to their spread in many poorly considered and seldom noted ways.

Yes! It oughta be obvious, but it goes way beyond that. Let me tell you the obvious first.

Fungus. Fungus grows in places that stay damp. That may be one reason young, excitable girls have problems with yeast, especially when their bodies stay wrapped with heat-and-moisture-trapping rags. Fungus can be blamed for the jock itch that have made baseball and rock stars and rappers so identifiable in public places—they have fungus on their pubic places. They may have gotten it from bedding down too many rag-wrapped dolls, or from their own rag-wrapped and therefore unclean conditions. Much of the rashing and spots you see beneath other people's clothing (and your own) are forms of fungus. If not, then they are

Germs. Bacteria, too, survive where dirt gets trapped and fresh air seldom reaches. A form of tiny things somewhat different from mold, bacteria has been humanity's main nemesis from the beginning. Clothing gives it more protection than it affords to us. Only a day's worth of sweat will provide nourishment to billions of these none-eyed monsters while they copulate, divide, and ride about with us everywhere we go.

Aroma. Fungal growth and bacteria contribute much to it. The truth be told, sweat is a combination of urine and fecal matter that excretes from our pores and, instead of dripping off our bodies, gets trapped in our rag wrappings.

There is ¹precedence to show that this is, or was, considered to be a condition denoting purity by those who condemned the invention of the bathtub (who considered attention to bodily cleanliness to be a sign of inattention to the purity of their souls). Too much of it nowadays will get one quickly damned as a public health hazard, which shows that this aspect of clothing is commonly known and the dangers flagged somewhere in the foggy realms of public awareness, even if few have taken actual note of any causes.

Clothing carries unpleasant odors other than bodily smells. We've learned to accept the chemical taint of cleaning fluids, moth preventatives, and detergents that lingers long after the drier has done its job. Cloth gains a different odor hanging in a closet, oftentimes of dust and mold spores. The worst offenders may be the flowery perfumes we use in attempts to cover up all the other ill-gotten tangy whiffs with which we hope to not impress important others with whom we might unexpectedly cross paths.

The Un-Obvious—Cancer: Pieces of research have begun to appear about the relationship of clothing to various kinds of cancer. We have been taught to think of skin cancers as being directly attributable to sunlight, and that seems more than likely to be true under our present so-called 'normal' conditions.

Recent articles have stated that a majority of skin cancers (melanomas) are found on areas of the body seldom exposed to sunlight, and on persons who make a practice of avoiding exposure to the sun. It was suggested that regular but minimal exposure to direct sunlight on all areas of the body may have a hardening effect of some kind that increases resistance to harmful rays. A more recent article suggests that twelve to twenty minutes of direct sun light (on all the body was implied but not stated) two to four times a week statistically reduced internal kinds of cancer. The article also suggested there may be beneficial components to sunlight that have heretofore gone unrecognized.

Genetics: Several years ago I read an article speculating that clothing worn by men increases the temperature in the scrotum two or more degrees, enough to contribute to potential genetic changes in the human race. I would assume this would result from the effect of unnatural conditions on the abilities of certain kinds of sperm to lead the pack on their race to fertilize the egg. What the ultimate effect of this would be was left up in the air by the article's writer. I mentioned it here only because it seemed as worthwhile as all the other speculation that goes on about this subject.

Mental: This element of normalized social nudity gets rehashed time and again, if only in response to opponents' qualms about links with sexuality. Let me see if I can present a clearer picture than the usual.

Nudity (nakedness) is a necessary part of sexual conduct for most of us. Sexual conduct, on the other hand, is not a necessary part of nudity. We have sex with that intention in mind, and act accordingly, but we can have the intention without relevance to our state of dress. To get nude for the act of sex cannot be likened to getting nude to take an air or water bath, to perform a religious rite, or to simply enjoy a brief respite before forcing ourselves to return to the wearing of clothes.

In fact, is it not those who constantly wear clothing without the experience of social nudity who have sex on their minds at their first consideration?—and while they are fully dressed? Dirty-mindedness shows that physical filth is not the only unrecognized stigma of clothing-compulsiveness. Dirty-mindedness, long considered a sign of immaturity, is a hallmark of the inexperienced legislators, executives, police, and judiciary functionaries who have placed themselves in charge of designing and enforcing laws for controlling the social order. Dirty-mindedness is behind the nastiness of making up of slogans such as "…parading around naked", "…joining a nudist colony", "…in front of God and everybody" (as compared to "…parading around in your fancy fineries", "…joining a prudish colony", or that "…in front of God and everybody" might not apply to themselves).

Dirty-mindedness is also a hallmark of the ignorance expected of immature individuals. Why is it, then, that such persons can be allowed to define right and wrong in areas of life of which they so overwhelmingly demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge? It has to be obvious that this is no longer necessary (if it ever was).

Please let me submit that putting scientists to the task of sorting these things out and getting them into the realm of bona fide data and out of the realm of inept speculation (in some way that political maneuvering could not influence) would shed a new light on things, the switch to which is right now waiting to be flipped 'on'. A set of documented, rigidly controlled experiments may be costly to perform, but I predict it would lead to changes that would save that entire cost the first year of their implementation.

If you are someone who would rather argue with that, I have only this question in response: "What is it you feel afraid of, that you would not leap on that opportunity to either prove yourself correct, or to learn where you went wrong?"

FootNotes:                          

| 1:  Sat, 16 Aug 2003 From: GUY SMITH