Are clothes and human decorations more important than human beings?

No but decoration is important also.

I don’t think there’s a way to “read” the body – as if there’s anything there to be read, it’s because someone is intending to send a message.

“Reading” the naked body, as an activity, is practically only really done by someone looking at the anatomy of it. I like the language of the body better, which requires we get the person involved.

In clothing and decoration, we get a glimpse of how the person sees him- or herself, the product of the mind. That is, in a way, more revealing than the naked body, which is largely a product of genetics.

Clothes to me only serve one function: to keep warm.
The less clothes the better. I love looking at naked people (depending on their gravitational pull).

I think some people are very adept at “reading” the human body. IMO you can tell a lot about a person just by looking at their body. I know I can. ;) Clothes, jewelry and tats are mere distractions from “reading” the body itself and will say more about the persons personality instead.

I just juxtaposed in my mind a high fashion model, with her withering, barely-in-this-dimension body underneath some couture items of clothing which mean something in some sphere of influence, but absolutely nothing in mine. Next to her, I see a native deep in the jungle of some foreign land I have never been to, who wears nothing but wood in her lips and a handcrafted belt around her waist. To me, the native woman seems far more interesting every time.

@Cruiser – But wouldn’t you say that, if the body isn’t doing anything, there’s nothing to be read?

I feel like reading the nude body requires it be in motion or moving somehow – you’re reading the person’s body language more than the body.

So it’s never really the body that’s expressive – it’s what is done to it or by it.

@iamthemob I disagree with you there and here is why. Height, weight, shape, muscle tone, any scars even hair and skin tone, teeth and finger nails condition all in seconds can tell me a lot about that person. Are they active, sedentary, strong, weak, healthy or sickly, confident, fearful, relaxed, tense, overweight, too thin, young or old, their posture….all these things are readily apparent just by looking at a person and then you can formulate a pretty reliable picture of what that person is about.

@Cruiser – But those are things done to the body – and are of limited informational value in the end. They can indicate someone might be a certain way (e.g., someone who looks fit probably exercises), but there are many people where the body shape would actually lie about that. And some of the qualities that may be generally clear just in the body (e.g., age) really have very little to tell us about the person – in fact, they often bias us in figuring out who the person is.

@iamthemob I think I need to teach you how to read. There is meaning in all things, but particularly in a human body. A rock has meaning, and I don’t mean just as a rock. It is a shape and it is in a place and it has a context that either helps it make sense or not. It’s surface tells you all kinds of things, if you know how to look.

A human body is the same. Yes, posture and set of head is part of it. But the surface of a human body also has things to say. The shapes of that body tell you much. The color of the eyes, the color of the skin, the smell of the armpits, the taste of the sweat. Color gives you cultural context. Smell tells you about bathing habits. Sweat can tell you about emotion.

Posture certainly tells you a lot. We all read a lot of emotions from body language whether we are aware of it or not. We read intent. We read action. The body in motion tells you much about how the person physically inhabits the world, but so can the resting body. Does the body carry tension? Is it relaxed? I could go on and on.

Clothing, I believe, tells you a completely different kind of thing. Clothing is designed to hide all that information and provide different information in it’s place. Clothing tells you status and work and even beliefs and temperament. It tells you how wealthy someone is (or is used to do that). It tells you what kind of work a person is doing—uniforms are expecially good at this.

Maybe I should have put this in the details, but I wanted to see where people would go—if they would go to what I asked, before I provided this information.

I’m saying that because most humans prefer a clothed body to an unadorned one, there must be a reason for that. Maybe people understand the adornments better than the unhidden person. Maybe we need to tailor our presentation to the world because to be our real, inner selves is too vulnerable. Maybe, maybe, maybe. I think that most people think human decorations are more important than reality. But why? I have some guesses, but that’s what I really want to know about. Unfortunately, people are so used to looking at surfaces, that perhaps they are even unaware there is another surface underneath the first surface. Or maybe they just conveniently “forget” it.

@iamthemob That is too bad you see all those visual cues of the body as limited information and I would challenge you to talk with Doctors some time. I have had really interesting conversations with my Osteopath who says although he listens to what his patients say as often it is only part of the story and that he can tell more just by looking at his patients in very much the same way as I described above.

@iamthemob I think you just don’t understand what you are reading. Or perhaps you understand it, but it isn’t important to you.

I know that I get an awful lot out of bodies and it helps me understand a lot.

Although, perhaps this is exactly what I want to know. Some people get more out of clothes for whatever reason.

I loved @thorninmud‘s comment. I only add that what we see in the form of clothing and decoration may be the opposite of, or at least very different from, who that person really is.

@Cruiser

I don’t see why this is “too bad.” I’m not saying that information taken from the body isn’t relevant – I’m saying that the most superficial information is taken from the person’s body. Posture, movement, the direction of a person’s glance – this is information about how the person inhabits their body and so is much, much more about who they are.

I bet if you talk to your osteopath the information that he gets by looking at you it’s not a picture of you – it’s fully four dimensional. It’s you sitting, walking, standing, bending.

@wundayatta

Wow. Really? I think that you actually are talking about something different – the body is a thing which we inhabit and act on. The limitations of it effect what kind of person we are, but most of the information you’re claiming you get from a body isn’t about the body…it’s about a dynamic interaction between the person, the body, time and space.

I think the best example of what I’m talking about is a person who is transgendered. A two-dimensional impression of a transgendered individual will tell you the exact opposite of what you need to know about the person. It will lie to you in almost every way. In essence, you really learn about the person in the way that they react against their body.

Not to be defensive – but I find it a bit dismissive and reductive to try to tell me that I don’t understand or care what I’m talking about. It makes me think that you’re just not trying to understand what I’m talking about.

“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.”

-Mark Twain

Who’s the “real person”, is the underlying question, right? And who has the right to determine that?

A body may tell a lot about one’s genetic and cultural heritage (from which we may be able to draw assumptions, but I hope we all realize how unreliable a guide to one’s character that is). We may be able to read information about diet, health and fitness, but again, how indicative is that of who one really is? Granted, a body that shows evidence of daily weight workouts would say something about a person’s values, I guess, but I’d really hesitate to draw any conclusions about a person from an unfit body.

Often what we’re actually “reading” when we make personal judgments based on bodies is our own preconceptions.

I agree that one can get accurate and useful information from how one moves and responds, but clothes are no impediment to that kind of reading.

To add onto what @thorninmud says – clothing not only may add no impediment to the reading but actually may actually be necessary to clearly read at all. A pre-op transexual needs to cloth his or her body very specifically to show who they are, and if they are not able to do so you inevitably misread what’s going on.

@iamthemob I guess that was what I was originally referring to was “reading” a persons body in person…as in naked and unclothed and not from just a picture even though a good photo can reveal quite a bit of information as well.

@iamthemob Sorry about the attitude. I was just surprised that we see things almost completely oppositely. But you find the clothes more important and I find the body more important, and what does that say about us? I guess I never should have asked the question if I didn’t want to know, but for whatever reason, I didn’t think it would be like this—with so many people dismissing most of what the body says to me, and getting more out of clothing.

I think this is actually pretty important, because it suggests that people find the seeming more important that the being. Indeed, some people think the clothing is most important, with the body almost being irrelevant. It suggest to me that people generally don’t inhabit their bodies. They lock their bodies up in their clothing and, as a dancer, I find this very sad and a bit scary.

There are consequences to not being in your body. Serious ones. It leads people to interact with each other in a much more theoretical way—i.e., a head driven way. Personally, I think that people who are disconnected from their bodies are more likely to both get hurt and hurt others. I don’t mean physical hurt, although that is a part of it, but what I am really talking about is psychological pain, and the consequences thereof.

@wundayatta

Now I know that you don’t understand what I’m saying – either you’re not listening or I’m not explaining it well.

I think it’s coming down to what you and I mean when we say “body.” I have a very, very limited definition of body. I think you are looking at a more inclusive definition of it, which I would probably describe as a person’s physical nature.

A body is a snapshot for me. A person’s physical nature is a 3D movie.

@Cruiser

I agree that there is information that you can get about a person from just the body (see my definition above), but it’s superficial and might be misleading. How a person communicates the experience of their body through movement, reactions, touch, scent over time, etc. is much more informational.

@iamthemob Well, I still don’t understand what you are getting at. The analogy doesn’t explain it for me. I mean the physical body. What you can see and feel. I don’t understand what you add when you add “nature” to the term “physical.” Nor do I understand the significance of the difference.

Although, really, I am asking about what people think is important about the clothes. And how would a person—absent the social conventions—be different clothed or unclothed in terms of what you would learn about them and what they would mean as moving objects or as art.

Lets say that the artist has two choices for canvas: clothing or the nude body. He or she “paints” both canvases and sets them loose. Which one tells you more about who the person really is?

@wundayatta

There are a few different questions here. One is what can the body, itself, tell us about the person. I would say not very much.

I think what you’re more getting at is looking at how people express themselves through various means. One is through their body, without anything like clothes and makeup. That does tell us a lot…but it’s not the whole expression. The way a person adorns themselves tells us more so that we get a complete picture.

And both body and adornment tell us a lot about the limitations that a person struggles through and also accepts, but neither alone again gives the full story. They also tell us how a person may be damaging themselves, or trying to teach others. Social conventions are of course a part of that.

The problem with removing social conventions is that you’re talking about communication – and that’s all about a desire to interact with others…it’s a social desire. And a body, clothed or unclothed, doesn’t say anything unless it’s seen (a little bit of synesthesia there…). So the only way to make sense of the idea of a naked body communicating differently than a clothed one is to agree upon some standards or conventions or else it’s not going to make any sense.

I think that the main social convention that we might be able to remove from the equation is the shame associated with nudity. If there were no basic shame, then we might learn things about people that they don’t know they’re really expressing but not from the body alone. For instance, if someone’s on the beach on a warm day, clothes are fairly superfluous. If somoene was wearing a suit, you might assume that they just don’t want sand in their junk or a sunburned wang. Totally practical. If you saw a scar on someone, you know that they were injured – but you need to ask to learn what happened. If they don’t talk about it, you might learn that there is a secretive side to them. But that’s not just from the body. And someone who wore clothes nonetheless, you’d look at the clothes for a message – long white robes could indicate an appreciation of grace, comfort, purity…brash colors confidence…etc.

Now, about the canvases – the main problem here is that both tell me about the person, and neither more than the other in a general sense. And neither tell me about who the person is moving, who they are when they are attracted, who they are when they’re with their parents or boss, etc. And importantly, I believe the canvasses might tell me more about the artist than the subject – what did the artist emphasize, choose to bring out, have the model pose…etc.

It seems like whether the clothed or naked body is more informatively valuable depends on an idea that there is a completely integrated person separate and apart from the world around him or her. It depends on a person being a static thing. I don’t think there’s any merit to that, really – and so I think that there’s communicative value in both clothing and nudity, and whether one or the other says more depends on the individual, the time, the circumstance, and the person looking at them.

I think a person inhabits their body quite differently from the way they inhabit their clothes. Clothes are an attempt to make a specific impression on the outside world. Clothes are how the person wants to be seen. They are artifice and sleight of hand.

The body, however, can’t hide anything. It is what it is. You see what I believe to be the inside person there. This is the person who can’t pretend. This is where all their fears and joys can not be hidden. The flush of the chest or the smell of fear cannot be hidden if there are no clothes. The shape of the body can not be hidden. This is the open, nothing hidden side of the person. The inner self is both shown in the body and freed because there is no veil.

Mostly we deal with clothes, so we are used to thinking that is what the person is. In fact, that is who the person is as far as public activities and, in fact, just about all activities except those in the bedroom, and even there a lot of people wear clothes.

Thus we present our official selves to the world. The self as we want to be dealt with. The self as we want to be seen. The self that we aspire to. Clothes are about who we want to be, not who we are.

My fear, which I think is proving true, is that it has gone so far that people think the aspiring self is more important than the true self. In fact, people don’t even believe the true self exists. They take their clothed self to be their true self, and don’t experience anything underneath. They are so involved in their aspiring self, that their true self doesn’t exist.

This is not true for everybody. Many people recognize in one way or another that the self they thought was real is, in fact, not authentic. They work to discover their authentic selves. I’m not saying they should go to nudist colonies to do this, but I do think some experience of being with other people without any barriers between you, but also in a non-sexual way, really helps understand who others are. Or such has been my experience.

@wundayatta

I think you’re taking it too far in the opposite direction. There is no such thing as an authentic self as the self is not static. One can be authentic in that they admit traits that they have, but this does not mean that suppressing those traits, changing them, or learning from them is inauthentic.

We can use clothing in an inauthentic way, but that doesn’t necessitate that we are inauthentic. Dressing in a way that looks confident when you aren’t may help you appear confident, which may make people respond to you as if you were, which may help you be confident. Of course, there are just fakes. They suck. ;-)

And again, you’re ignoring transgenders. To them, their body is a lie. Redressing it or altering it is the truth. Dressing as a woman when you’re biologically male may show that you are, indeed, a woman. Naked, you’re a man. In that case, clothes are about who you are, and your body is about a mistake.

I agree that relating to each other nude in a non-sexual way is a liberating experience, and allows for an interaction that eliminates some barriers at times. You can learn new things about a person and even yourself. But it’s an experience that’s part of who you are.

Centering the self in the body is an enormous mistake. There are so many disorders associated with the body that make the body a lie. Anorexics look thin to us…inside, they’re fat. Hyper-exercised people may be healthy, but many are suffering from body dismorphic disorder – the perfection of their body is actually a cover for their profound hatred of who they are. The shape of the body hides everything about the person. Bodies lie…they lie all the time.

And consider those who are extremely physically disabled, or deformed at birth or by accident. Bodies in some cases for them are the barrier between who they are to themselves, and who they are to the world. And there are those who have phobias about harm coming to them in the outside world that keeps them as shut ins – their bodies prevent any interaction, and they become invisible.

For people like the above, as well as anyone who has any problem interacting socially because of a perceived physical fault, the internet ends up being a profound release for them, where they can show parts of themselves normally not seen because the body is a barrier. Web interactions allow a freedom that the reduction to the physical self that you seem to be talking about would prevent. It is often pure thought. Can that be considered inauthentic?

I get your concern, but in expressing it you’re deprivileging aspects of expression that are real, authentic and important for any understanding of others and ourselves.

clothing are one of the things that seperate humans from animals. Clothing is part of our culture and therefore part of who we are.

The only claim the self has to reality is as subjective experience. It’s what it feels like to be a particular person. That’s a tenuous enough claim as it is, changing and provisional as those feelings are; hardly enough to qualify as “true” self. But the body, taken as an object, has even less claim as a self.

Only one person can know the subjective experience of what it feels like to be person X, and that’s person X. As an outside observer, you may look for clues about that person’s inner experience, draw analogies to how you think you might feel in their place, or if you had that body, but that’s as close as we can get. To mistake that for the reality of person X does them a disservice.

How they choose to present their image of themselves to the public may involve an element of dissimulation, yes, and that’s often evident. But even in the act of dissimulating they’ve conveyed some sense of what it’s like to be them. Even if they’re portraying their aspirations, that’s an important part of their subjective experience.

Yes, they’re important. Clothes and decorations level the playing field of physical attractiveness for humans not at the peak of health or form.

@wundayatta you should join a nudist club to experiment with this. With clothing removed as a social cue, one has to rely on other social cues.
Although even there, at ‘happy hours’ and dance parties people still express themselves with jewelry, shoes, hats, even the towels they carry.

I knew that there was a lot of disembodiment out there, but the level I see here shocks me. It makes me despair, too.

I have experiences that I think would make most of you change your minds about this particular issue if you were to have them. It’s not any big woo-woo thing. It’s just dance, although not the kind of dance that most people in the US have experienced.

A lot of people commenting here seem to be settling themselves right in the heart of the Cartesian duality. Our bodies and minds are not separable. It doesn’t even make sense to think of them as different things, and yet people continue to do this in deed, if not word.

@iamthemob I’m not going to take on all your examples, but I will take on the transgendered person you seem to think is of such great importance. I maintain that if you are knowledgeable in the language of bodies, it would be perfectly obvious that this person is a woman even though she has a penis. She would stand like a woman, walk like a woman, exist like a woman—at least, to the extent that she felt she was a woman. I would say that it would be much easier to see her true nature than it would be if you just focused on her clothes.

But we can’t prove any of this, which is frustrating. I would love to give you the kind of experience I am talking about. Even after one session, if you kept yourself from deliberately sabotaging it, you would begin to see the potential. We often say that if the leaders of the world were to dance together as we do, then it would be impossible for them to hate each other so much—or hate each other’s nations, if we were all to dance together.

Dancing like this teaches you a lot of things, not just how to read people. It also helps you read nature and groups and work dynamics, etc, etc, It’s probably an embodiment of NLP, although I’ve never really thought that through (and I don’t know enough about NLP, either). But we train ourselves to be differently. Whatever.

We can continue to talk about theory, and it is probably my mistake for intervening. I don’t really want to argue with anyone. Your experience is your experience and I should be asking you more questions about it instead of trying to describe a different way of doing it. Anyway, I’m not sure I will respond in an argumentative way any more. I’m going to try to hear you better. I don’t know how far I’ll get. This is one of those times when the internet is really frustrating.

This is something that can’t be explained in words. That sounds like a copout, I’m sure, but I’ve tried. A lot. It’s not language, though. It’s a direct interaction with the world with no intermediating factors, like symbols and the kind of thoughts that use symbols. It’s a kind of thinking and interaction that does not use words and can’t use words and thus, when you try to translate it into words, it’s fruitless. In order to experience it, you have to shut off the words. Like meditation or yoga practice.

Yes, I’m very aware of the limits of dualism. Strictly speaking, there is no valid distinction between mind and body, or between subject and object. But if you wish to speak from that frame of reference, then there is no self and other either. To stop at calling the body “true self” is just moving the boundary of duality out a bit from between mind and body to between the the skin and the rest of the world. If you want to eliminate duality, you can’t stop there. Your “true self”, in this non-dual sense, transcends all boundaries. If you do this, then there truly is nothing that can be called a body at all, and this discussion can go no further.

If, on the other hand, you want to admit that there are persons who are not you, and have their own inner lives of subjective experience, and then discuss what makes them selves different from other selves, then I’m afraid you can’t do that with out some taint of duality.

@wundayatta

I’m a little peeved that your responses to me assume a certain lack of experience with the body potentially, or with group nudity – certainly the kind you’re talking about. I’ve been naked with hundreds of other people, in performance and social settings (completely non-sexual) and the experiences have enriched me. I’ll tell you, going to a naked house party with a friend of mine who I’d known for years…heading through a group of nude people and heading to an attic to take off our clothes in front of each other, giggling the entire time…and looking at each other…well, the reaction was simply “Oh…so that’s what you look like naked.” And then we got cocktails and danced a lot. It was insanely fun, but in the end I felt like I didn’t learn anything new about her from seeing her body – rather, anything we learned about each other was regarding the fact that we were both willing to discard the clothes because naked bodies aren’t a big deal.

And you know what – I can remember her face, voice, and laugh – but damn if I can’t remember anything about what she looks like naked.

@thorninmud “Your “true self”, in this non-dual sense, transcends all boundaries.” This is true. Perhaps this is related to an ability to read other people sans clothes as well as one can read them with clothes. It’s an amazing thing to feel connected like this, but there is a difference between connection and being the same.

We have our own bodies whether we are in connection with others or not. No. I take that back. In my experience, when I’m connected with others—whether it be all the people in the room, or the entire planet—I feel…. I feel…. Now once again, I run up against the limit of words. The connection is there, and I know what everyone else is doing the same as I know what I am doing, so I am connected. But I’m not the same. I am my own part in all of it. It’s like there are boundaries and no boundaries, if I use your terminology (which I only do because I believe it speaks to you, not because I think of it that way).

It is a multi-faceted awareness, but then, it’s not an awareness at all. It just is. Sometimes I try to separate myself from it and observe myself at the same time as I am in it. That’s kind of difficult. I only do it because I want to remember what happened, and I can’t remember without words.

You say there is no self and no other. That is exactly how it feels. At the same time, it also feels like there is an “I” who is experiencing all this. But, no matter what we call it, and no matter how it trains us to be and perceive in our world, it can still tell the difference between a person and a person’s seeming.

@iamthemob And now I’ve peeved you off again! Sigh. The experience I’m talking about is not something that is available anywhere but where I live, so that’s why I’m betting you’ve never experienced it.

Your experience with a nude party sounds pretty interesting. How did you your friend know about this shindig?

Anyway, I’m not surprised you didn’t learn anything about anyone through their bodies. A party is full of distracting things that take us out of bodies and keep us in our heads. To learn about someone, I think it is easiest if you are with them in a quiet and calm setting where you can just “be” with them, doing nothing.

It’s hard to pay that kind of attention at a party, although I’m sure some people can do it. But I’m not just talking about that kind of seeing. I’m also talking about the body as a symbol—or lots of symbols. It is something that speaks to us in a way that most people don’t read.

For example, your friends body spoke to you, although it doesn’t sound like you think it was speaking to you. It said, to you, that her body was somehow ordinary and not the kind of amped up thing that our puritanical culture makes it out to be. That, actually, is an enormous learning and a very deep reading. “Naked bodies aren’t a big deal.” Again, this is something your read from a naked body, and it is important. It is an example of the kind of thing one can read from surfaces of anything, although most people don’t become aware that they are doing it.

You can go further if you can pay attention to something in a more focused way. You can sit with a rock or the ocean waves, or whatever. By observing, you learn a lot more about their nature and about what they mean. The nature stuff might considered to be scientific observation, but it doesn’t matter what you call it or who else does it, when you do it, you can learn a lot, if you have the patience and are willing to pay attention.

We often get quite distracted by thoughts of a social nature, or by thinking about the future, and then we lose our presentness. Since most of us do this most of the time, I think we forget there is this other way that we can be in the world. In this way of looking, symbols are of utmost importance. The nature of things is not.

This probably makes sense since we are social beings and our lives depend on our ability to get along with others. However, I think that the focus on symbols is partly our own fault in the sense that we deliberately want others to deal with our symbolic representation of self. We hide much of ourselves for any number of reasons. We even hide it from ourselves, I think. We lose our awareness of our inner aspirations and fears and pains and joys because we spend our time almost exclusively in the symbol world.

@wundayatta – If a body can tell you something about a person other than, essentially, their physical characteristics…then it has a symbolic value itself. If the body communicates something, it does so in a language that also is necessarily symbolic. And if both the expression of the body and that of clothing works on a symbolic level, there’s no reason to assume that there is a greater value of one over another. That one is a lie, and the other is not. Or just one is more you, and the other less.

You seem to locate ourselves in our bodies. Our ability to produce language and art undermines that – we are much, much more than our bodies. And seeing my friends naked – some of them walked a little different. Most didn’t.

You clearly believe that the body expresses something that is essential about a person that you cannot learn from them clothed, no matter how long you’ve known them. I think that’s really reductive…I find it hard to believe that I would learn anything that would change my impression – I might learn something new, but I don’t think I need to see them all nude, sitting in a quiet space and focusing on them alone, to have an “ah – ha!” moment.

@iamthemob There is a difference in how the symbols are made. A body is a combination of nature and lifestyle. Clothes are purely artificial. I think nature and lifestyle tells me more than artifice. You don’t.

I also have a habit of seeing things deep inside questions here that other people either don’t see or don’t talk about. Perhaps that’s just the way I am. I like to see through surfaces as much as I can, and my operating assumption is that surfaces are mostly made of prevarications. I have almost universally found that when I find out the things that people have not thought it important to tell, or have actively been hiding, it changes my understanding of them dramatically.

For me, words and clothes are like a vine-covered lattice work around a garden. I need to find the spaces between the leaves through which I can see the garden. If I only marvel at the lattice work itself, I can learn a lot, but I have missed far too much of the beauty inside.

I think it’s all an expression of who a person is. But above anything visual, I privilege how one chooses to speak to the world – over clothes, body, jewelry, movement.

@iamthemob To me it is the body language that always speaks the truth. Anybody can put on clothes to give an impression of something that is really not there and so can words.

If you put someone naked on a turn table and in one minute I will know more about that person than a 20 minute conversation would ever reveal.

@wundayatta In terms of “true self”, we’re all the same. In fact, in terms of “true self”, you and I are no different from a Pop Tart, or Interstate 94. In this regard, it’s quite true to say that if you’ve seen one body, you’ve seen them all. It goes far beyond just connection.

It’s on the level of our delusions that we are different one from another. Everything we take as setting us apart is a form of self-deception. It’s all “seeming”. If it weren’t for the seeming, there’d be only the undifferentiated void. But we have lives to live.

Right now, @thorninmud, I’m picturing you as a person wearing chain mail, sitting astride a horse and having your lance handed to you by your page.

Just between us, I’ll always dip my lance in the final charge and take your lance right in my heart. There’s room on the horse for two, if you’re tired of walking.

Absolutely not! I think more of us should go nude so that we can have a more honest reading of people! The body is much more important than clothes.

I do not judge people by how they dress at all…it is the person inside that counts…