not amused by the missionary zeal that prompts us to press our notions of decency upon them while being

insensitive or opposed to theirs.” 37 Julian Robinson adds: “Eighteenth and nineteenth century missionaries and
colonial administrators were blissfully blind to their own religious, cultural and sexual biases, and to the
symbolism of their own tribal adornments–their tight-laced corsets, powdered wigs, constricting shoes as well as designs of
outer garments wholly unsuited to colonial life. These missionaries and administrators still took it upon

themselves to expunge all those ‘pagan, barbaric and savage forms of body packaging’ which failed to conform to
their body covering standards. . . . Thus the social and of the conventional forms of body
Ornamentation which had evolved over countless generations were, oftentimes, destroyed forever.” 38
Russell Nansen records that “Henry Morton Stanley, the rescuer of David Livingstone in the Belgian
Congo. . . . from 1847 to 1877 . . . Drifted across Africa tolerating every hardship but when he went back to
England he acquired a celebrated speech to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He explained to the audience how
many natives there were in the Congo, as well as the fact that they lived nude. He told the audience that their obligation as
Christians was to convert these misguided nude savages to Christianity and to the wearing of clothes. And when
this missionary work had advanced sufficiently to convince the natives of the importance of wearing garments on Sunday,
that would mean three hundred and twenty million yards of Manchester cotton cloth yearly. Forthwith the crowd
rose to its feet and cheered him.” 39
25. Most anthropologists consider modesty an unlikely reason behind the development of clothes.
J.C. Flugel writes: “The great bulk of scholars . . . have unhesitatingly regarded decoration as the
Motivation that led, in the first place, to the adoption of clothes, and consider the heat- and modesty-maintaining
functions of clothing, however significant they might later on become, were only discovered once the wearing of clothing
had become habitual for other reasons. . . . The anthropological evidence consists primarily in the truth that among the
most primitive races there exist unclothed although not undecorated peoples.” 40 Anthropologists agree almost
unanimously with this point.41
26. Many psychologists and anthropologists believe that modesty about exposure of the body may well be a
Consequence of wearing clothes, rather than its cause.42
27. It is interesting to notice that it is just possible to be immodest once an accepted kind of modesty has
been created.43
28. Modesty with respect to nudity is a social phenomenon, not biologically instinctive. That is evidenced
by the fact nudity is venerated in art.44
Naturism promotes sexual health.
29. Nudity is not, by itself, lusty, and nudity in interracial groups is not inherently sexual. These are
propagated by a clothing-obsessed society. Sexuality is a matter of intention rather than state of dress.
In our culture, someone who exhibits their sexual parts for just about any reason is thought of as an exhibitionist. It
is supposed they stripped to bring attention and result in a sexual reaction in others. This really is seen as a perversion.
Hypocritically, if someone dresses specifically to arouse sexual attraction, they are believed to have pride in their
appearance. Even though they get great sexual gratification from the attention others give, there is no suggestion of
perversion or sexual fixation.
30. Nudists, as a group, are fitter sexually compared to overall population.
Nudists are, as a rule, far more comfortable with their bodies compared to the public, which leads to
a more relaxed and comfortable approach toward sexuality in general.
31. Sexual gratification in married couples demonstrates a correlation to their degree of relaxation with nudity.45
32. Studies show significantly less prevalence of casual premarital and extramarital sex, group sex, incest,
and rape among nudists than among non-nudists.46
33. Studies have demonstrated that states with fewer hangups about nudity have lower teen pregnancy
and abortion speeds.47
34. Clothing enhance sexual enigma as well as the capacity for unhealthy sexual dreams.
Photographer Jock Sturges says, “our arbitrary demarcations [between garments and nudity, sexual and
asexual] function more to confound our collective sexual identity than to further our societal advancement. America sells
everything with sex and then recoils when presented with the realities of natural process.” 48 C. Willet Cunnington
writes: “We must thank the Early Fathers for having, albeit unwillingly, created a mode of thinking from
which men as well as women have developed an artwork which has provided . . . so many novel means of exciting the sexual
Hunger. Prudery, it appears, provides humans with never-ending aphrodisiacs, consequently, without a doubt, the unwillingness to abandon
it.” 49