Body shame and naturism

I mentioned earlier that the purpose of clothes is twofold: warmth and modesty. I would now like to modify that statement to be warmth, modesty, and hygiene, as I now understand it. And I still question modesty. Why, you might be asking? Because I believe it is possible to be modest without wearing clothes. Now you may be very confused because being naked means that you are flaunting your sexuality. And being modest is to not flaunt your sexuality but rather protect it as sacred. My point is that being naked does not have to be an occasion to flaunt one's sexuality. I will point your attention to showering at the gym, frinstance. One might say that you should only be nude when you are by yourself or with your spouse because of the aforementioned problem of immodesty being linked to nakedness. But this is only a result of one's indoctrination into society as a child, which teaches the child (hopefully) unintentionally that one's body is a source of shame and needs to be hidden from others, when in reality, most children would be just as happy, if not happier, to go about without any clothes on. One might also say that this is because of the child's innocence and that once the child becomes conscious of his or her sexual nature, being naked is no longer practical or appropriate. Again, I would say that the only reason that that shame develops, making any scarce sight of nudity an overwhelming and sexually exciting experience, is because society dictates it to be so. If an adolescent had no reason to be curious about the naked human body (because he is surrounded by non-sexual nudity), then he would have no reason to turn to pornography (which takes curiosity and perverts it into sinful lust) and be able to develop a healthy sexuality and respect for women. Also, having something be forbidden makes it that much more enticing (ie sexually exciting).

Body shame came as a result of original sin. When "Adam and Eve" sinned, the first thing they did afterwards was hide their nakedness in their shame. It was not part of what God intended. As Christians, we actively try to return to a sinless state. Why do we simply accept the shame that came with the sin as we try to reject that sin? God created our bodies in his image and likeness and called them very good. So what right do we have to be ashamed of them (except for the influence that society has on us)? Society tells us that we must have a perfect body, when, in reality, no one does. Yet models are airbrushed to "perfection," making everyone feel self-conscious and insecure. Clothing itself is used to flaunt one's sexuality (such as bikinis). Clothing that goes right up to the line of "too far" is actually more sexually stimulating, drawing more undue attention to the body than simple nudity would. Of course, in our society of body shame, non-sexual nudity will always be perceived as sexual, making it irresponsible and immoral to be naked around people who would derive sinful lust from the experience.

So I would like to be able to accept my body, accept the wonderfully imperfect bodies of others, and in so doing, return to a more natural state (I suppose this is a part of my primitivism). And a more natural state would lead me closer to God.

What this means for me practically is that I have a better understanding of my own past struggles with pornography and that I do not want to feel any shame about my body. The only way to get over that shame is through actually being naked. I am not interested in nudist clubs because those seem to put too much emphasis on the issue, allowing it to dominate their lives, creating another unnecessary division, now between nudists and textiles (those who wear clothing), that I do not want. Naturism, which I suppose is a subcategory of nudism, seeks to gain more unity with nature through being naked. This is what attracts me most. The idea of a swimming suit (now outside of the realm of its need for modesty's sake) seems absolutely absurd to me. There is also the issue of top-free equality among men and women. Breasts are required to be covered up by society for a rather indirect connection to sex, the feeding of the result of the sex (the baby). So even under the context of needing to cover up sexual organs, the need to cover up breasts is doubtful. So this is another aspect of gender inequality, men being legally allowed to be top-free where women are not. It is absurd that the legality of breastfeeding in public is disputed, treating it as if even that is a sexual act.

Do not get me wrong; clothes are still needed for warmth and hygiene of course (and modesty when in the company of textiles). And I do not intend to go strolling around town in the buff, but when it is practical and appropriate, I would like to lose the shame with the clothes.

There were two sites that were immensely helpful in understanding the philosophy behind nudism and the ethics of it that I'd like to share, for your own healthy curiosity. (Don't worry, they're safe for work (ie no pictures of nudists)).
They are:
Rejectshame.com and Clothing and Nakedness in the Bible.