The document discusses the arguments against naturism and public nudity. It argues that while natural behaviors like squeezing pimples are private, public nudity exposes unwanted things. Nudity shows aging skin and body parts like saggy skin and varicose veins that people typically want to cover up. It also notes clothing protects the skin from injuries and sun exposure, and colorful clothing can make people look better than the "dirty pink" of naked skin. Overall, the document suggests clothing is preferable to nudity for both modesty and practical protective reasons.

1. Naturism
Naturism, nudity…call it what you like…It’s an interesting concept. Its very name implies
that it is somehow natural.
That’s what fans of naturism would say. Well, squeezing a pimple is natural. Going to the
toilet is natural…but it doesn’t mean that I want an audience.
Nakedness is not a good look. Pigs might suit pink…but not everyone does.
What’s wrong with wearing clothes? Clothes not only protect your modesty… your skin &
your bones need protection too. Have you ever seen a bikie with no clothes on? Aside from
the g-force on the crown jewels, what would happen in an accident? No more crown jewels,
that’s what. Broken bodies can be fixed. Grated bodies cannot.
The colour of flesh is so boring. Why be a dirty pink when clothes can offer you all the
colours of the spectrum. Colourful clothes can help you look younger, slimmer, more
vibrant…more alive.
Your birthday suit does not offer this illusion. Saggy bits, haemorrhoids, varicose veins…it’s
not pretty. Why would you want to flaunt all your inadequacies?
I don’t believe that naturism is a great leveller, either. Take the glowing, gleaming
bright colours of bandsmen in a military parade. A blaze of glorious colour…the
epitome of polished professionalism.
Imagine these fine fellows without their uniforms. Pink hairy men swinging in the breeze. At
least Desmond & his big base drum would be afforded some modesty…but Phillip & his
flute would be a bit over exposed.