Nudity Should Be As Legal As Clothing

I was going to wait until tomorrow to wrap up my end of this debate since I worked all day, but I think I can handle it tonight. note-My opponent failed to put parentheses on all my statements, but shouldn't be hard for someone to figure out which comments are mine in his Round 4 response to this debate. note- I will once again put parentheses around my opponent's comments to offset them from my responses. note-Where I do not respond to my opponent's comments doesn't mean I've missed them. I simply feel the content has been covered and don't want to beat a dead horse. (I don"t particularly see the point in attacking clothing other than it being the opposite of nudity.) I am actually not attacking clothing. I don't consider myself a nudist. I am clothing optional. But in order to debate whether nudity should be as legal as clothing, I have to point out the downside to clothing. I haven't said nearly as much as I can about the advantages of nudity over clothing. It's not a part of this debate. I'll be saving that for another debate in the near future. (Do you feel it may be a possibility that more nudity/less clothing could be leading to a more perverse society?) No. I believe the opposite. Clothing creates desire. Desire makes people act perverse. You want what you can't see. That's why marriages break up. Once you see it over and over again, you probably want to try something else. So more nudity will lead to less interest and less crime. ( You are in essence agreeing that this desire exists, correct?) Yes. Desire exists. What causes that desire is where we disagree? (If we ban clothing like you suggest, what does that leave us with? No clothes, perpetuating the issue.) I'm not suggesting we ban clothing. But if you are going to ban nudity, then clothing needs to be banned as well. Neither one contributes to indecency. People do that. Doesn't matter what they are wearing or not wearing. (Haven"t we heard time and time again about how people (unfortunately, mostly woman) Have "asked for it" " meaning them being the provocateur and the provocative attire leads to the offense. I feel this is very wrong but seems to illustrate that my point of showing more is urging more.) I could be wrong, but I think you are supporting my point. The clothing is causing desire. Since I exist on both sides of the clothed and not clothed issue, I can tell you. Clothing is way better at creating desire than nudity will ever be. Nothing against you, my friend. But I live both sides of the issue daily. (We all know that some people are not as clean as others. How would this effect others on subways, in movie theaters, anywhere for that matter if someone who chooses not to clean themselves after defecating?) That's what a towel is for. It's common practice at places where nudists go for them to sit on towels. Clothing is way dirtier than nudity. Do you have any idea how often someone will use the same clothing over and over again? Feces will soak through clothing and contaminate an area as well if someone doesn't clean themselves. While naked people will take better care to present themselves in the best possible light. I don't see this being an issue. We all use public toilets and take our precautions. The same can be done in public places out in the open. Nudity will not stop people from doing what they do. Same way clothing will not stop unsanitary issues. They are not meant to. Cleanliness is up to the individual. And I hate to say it, but where I work there have been instances of waste product left behind on chairs and that was from clothed people. (How would someone's wife or husband react if their significant other was exposed to an erection due to someone being attracted to them? Would that effect where off over time?) Do erections not happen while clothed? Are they not sometimes noticeable? Does anyone spend that much time staring at another's crotch? And if they did whether it was clothed or naked, wouldn't it be up to the person offended to take action as they saw fit? I can't speak to someone's reaction to an erection. Nudity doesn't cause erections any more than clothing does. And I can't say whether that effect will wear off over time. It depends on the individual. (Could woman's vaginas be subject to bacteria and germs? As you point out that the genitals are used for discretion of human waste. An obvious source of germs.) Tight clothing causes yeast infections. Open air environments kill bacteria who need a moist, warm place to thrive. Clothing provides just such a warm, moist place. In this case, nudity is healthier for women. Not to mention underwear is a perfect place to catch urine drops and feces. The jokes about skid marks in some people's underwear are true. At least with a towel, you can fold it over and not have that crap rubbing up against your skin all day. Why do babies get diaper rash? Clothing is your source of germs. Not to mention ticks and fleas use clothing as a means to hide and travel on their hosts. No clothing means these pests are found easier. (How would young children be effected psychologically? They do not have the same level of understating as we (adults) have.) The studies show younger people have less of a problem with nudity than adults. They haven't been taught to see their bodies as a dirty thing that needs to be covered. Until some adult comes along and destroys that innocence. I'd rather someone appreciate the body they have than taught to hate the skin they are in and feel embarrassed by this wonderful gift they've been given. If you want to see what a healthy child looks like, go to www.purenudism.com. All pictures on this site are legal in every state in the US. Disclaimer-Anyone offended by pictures of nudist families, please don't access the website I've listed. I make no money from this website and only list it as a source in which to respond to my opponent's statement. In Closing: Before voting, I would like to leave you with a few thoughts. I was not trying to prove nudity is superior to clothing. My position is that one is no more superior to the other. They are equally appropriate for a person to wear in public. When I say wear nudity, I mean skin. To me a person's skin constitutes clothing. So people are never naked in public. This is not an issue of moral or immoral behavior. The person commits immoral acts with our without clothing. Nudity and clothing are not to be blamed for someone's indecency. They do that themselves. By making nudity as legal as clothing you are striking a blow for freedom. We lose so much of ourselves when interacting with other people. We are expected to look a certain way, act a certain way, treat each other a certain way, etc. in public. How many more freedoms can we afford to lose? We all want to feel comfortable no matter what we are wearing. You enjoy the clothing you wear. Let others have this same enjoyment who enjoy wearing only the clothing they were born in. You lose nothing by allowing them this. In fact, you gain the ability to do the same thing yourself. And if you've never tried to go without clothing, who's to say you might not find out something about yourself. You might be more comfortable without it.