Nudity is Natural, and so is Nakedness but the two words have different meanings...

By D. El De McClung O. C.

Repeat after me: Naked is without fur, feathers,scales,or a shell; Nude is without clothes, or other form of covering OVER the naked body.


Now if I were to think about it a little it might occur to me that nudity is not a bad thing in and of itself. However I am sure that there are more than a few who would disagree. Let me just say this, nakedness is a natural state and occurs at birth in EVERY case, as far as Humans are concerned. Thus, nakedness is not only natural it is the norm. Somewhere after that nakedness, and the naturalness of being naked, is disregarded and an UN-natural condition takes its place. That is in all but a very few primitive cultures. I have studied somewhat some of those cultures and they are far less traumatized by their nudeness than the rest of the world. It should not be surprising that the so-called enlightened civilized peoples of modern society are sufferers of psychosis and self-loathing to such a degree that it is a wonder that they have survived as well as they have.
There are a few who accept their nudeness as natural (as well as their nakedness)and healthy, and who practice the belief that having it is good enough reason to expose it. Whatever their motives, they are surely healthier and happier for their belief. I for one am certainly happier and healthier for their courage and their convictions. I include heathier for myself in that I can enjoy their naturalness, their nudity, even if only partially so, and that is a satisfying compensation to my own natural lust-yes I said lust- as well as my own appreciation for their Natural beauty.
Natural beauty is not quite the same as perceived beauty. The latter kind of beauty is often fabricated by social standards and the prevailing tastes of a society. Any one should be able to see through the weaknesses of that kind of measuring stick of what is beautiful and what is not beautiful; what does qualify as beauty, what is not something or someone of beauty. A shallow method of determining an absolute. And so it must be concluded that perceived beauty is relative and therefore not to be taken too seriously. Natural beauty on the other hand is relatively simple to determine. It is or has the attributes of nature and follows the path that Nature has provided.
Being born naked is the natural path for humans and diverting from that path is un-natural. Allowing a perverted society to taint our natural condition with fabricated notions such as what is ?decent? or what is ?moral? is in itself damaging to that society as a whole and to each and every individual in that society.
If a position on one side or the other is required then I must side with the Natural over the perverted and support nudeness over hiding our natural bodies from the view of others of our own species not to mention from our selves.
Naked is defined as having no fur, no feathers, no shell covering our skin. Humans have none of these and therefore they are naked skinned mammals. Naturally naked. Covering our nakedness, our bodies, with material, fabric, clothing is biologically un-natural. Covering our bodies with protective clothing is of course normal and logical, in those conditions that require such a thing. Protecting our naked bodies from the elements is natural. Coverings to protect from the cold, clothing to guard against the damaging rays and heat of the Sun are only reasonable. So wearing clothing is natural after all.
The problem is not in wearing protective coverings. The problem is the justification for it. Wearing clothing to cover up the naked and thus unprotected skin as compensation for not having a natural covering, protections such as fur, feathers, or a shell, is sound and in a sense quite natural. But to cover the unprotected skin when no protections are needed is not natural. To wear body coverings for no biological reason (such as protecting the naked skin from the elements or the body itself from the effects of the elements)is a fabricated excuse or result brought about as a result of mental conditioning.
One might claim that the mental conditioning is natural in a sense. I am inclined to agree but only with the stipulation that the ?learned? results be considered in the context of clothes being an accessory or decoration, or a statement of status or class. The learned belief that clothes are required in order to cover one?s ?private parts? for the sake of modesty is, of course, a fabricated idea. There are some ?religions? that carry the idea way beyond any reasonable or even rational point. Take for example the Muslim requirement that women be covered from head to toe. I will not elaborate on the Muslims and their bazaar customs here, but I find them and their customs in regard to this subject to be extreme and excessive, and a good example of the absurdities that mankind will tolerate and indulge in.
In some primitive societies clothes are rarely if ever worn. The people of those cultures are quite content with that practice. The climate is agreeable to the practice of living in the nude. Apparel is worn as adornment or a sign of status. Rarely, if ever worn to cover their ?private parts? for the sake of modesty. Psychotic episodes are also rare if not none existent among the natives within those societies as far as the issue of nudity is concerned. It is simply not considered.
Being and living free of the restraints and burdens of society?s mandated, and misguided mandate at that, requirement that we all ?cover our privates? at all times should be proof enough that so called civilized and enlightened societies are anything but enlightened. And it could be said that they are not much ?civilized? either. I speak of the American society for the most part since there are some European societies where the burden is not so strict and certainly the restrictions are not so rigidly enforced. To their credit, yes, but they still have some distance to go before they can claim ?enlightenment?. As long as natural nudeness is looked upon as ?indecent? and prosecuted by draconian laws those societies can not claim to be enlightened or ?civilized?. These societies, in particular America, show themselves to be unwilling or incapable of accepting their own natural state of being or their inalienable right to be natural.
The handicap, the injustice, the blatant ignorance of society can be overcome if people, individuals, not only resist these un-natural conditions but actively join together to challenge the status quo mentality and the anti-natural laws that deprive them of their birthright.
************************************************

*******************************************************************
The Sexual Liberation of Youth

By D. El De Monne Le Degage

This article has been deleted by the author. There are many sites on the net that contain articles and discussions on this issue. Most of them do a much better job than I have in this deleted article. Therefore I am deleting my article here in favor of those articles. I recommend that you do a search. No doubt you will locate many of them that express my views and positions on the subject of sexual freedom for youth. D. El De McClung.