Select the search type
  • Site
  • Web
Search

The natural world. Looking pretty for 3.5b years.

Naked and Afraid

Naked and Afraid

Author: Reilly Capps/Tuesday, August 26, 2014/Categories: natural history

[Photo from "Dating Naked" from VH1]

In yet another addition to the category of "lawsuits that seem like jokes," a female contestant on the show "Dating Naked" is suing the production companies for ... wait for it ... showing her naked. 

Apparently, the show broadcast a brief glimpse of her babymaker, which was seen live by 800,000 or so viewers, and seen by millions more after the story was covered here and here and here and everywhere. The pope probably saw her hoo-ha. It's just like this Yankees fan who didn't like the attention he got for sleeping during a game, and so sued the broadcasters, thus ensuring that everybody would see his fat drowsy face and know that not only did he fall asleep during a baseball game but that he is a litigious wad of horse phlegm. 

But it also brings up the question of: where does this nervousness at being naked come from? It can't be natural. Apes don't weave leaves into loincloths. 

And it can't be because, 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve ate the apple of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil, and realized their nakedness, and were ashamed.

That story can't be true because snakes lack the proper vocal chords to articulate any sounds besides S's, and also because clothes have been around for perhaps 100,000 years. How do we know? We don't. But the genetic lineages of head lice, which live on -- right -- heads, diverged from body lice, which live on clothes, around 100,000 BC. This is why scientists peg the first clothes at being 100,000 years old, or 94,000 years before the unfortunate incident with the apple in the garden. (Bible also says that God, among other flaws, is a sub-par tailor, making clothes out of skins, without even considered linen or chenille.) 

There are many theories as to WHY humans developed a proclivity for clothes, especially in places where they're not needed for warmth. 

One prominent theory is status. Clothes are like a bank statement you can wear on your back. 

Another theory, related, is sexiness. Despite what the Internet might make you think, most people find clothed people more desirable than the unclothed. It adds a mystery -- like birthday presents -- and is helpful if there are bulges and dips that you want to hide until it's already too late for the other person to back out. 

What's sexier? This: 



Or this? 

File:Kerry Washington 4 Met Opera 2010 Shankbone.jpg

I know, I know, it's not fair. Kerry Washington is hot. The point stands, though. 

It's likely that the woman suing "Dating Naked" is upset because she feels that, through exposure, she lost status and (perceived) sexiness. Her only miscalculation was that, now that she's pointed out her nakedness to the world, she has less status and less sexiness than she did before. 
Print

Number of views (3503)/Comments (0)

Please login or register to post comments.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x