15 November 2002
The power of pasta

If I remember correctly, the oldest woman ever to appear in a Playboy pictorial was fifty-five. (This would be Nancy Sinatra; how does that grab you, darlin'?) Still, there are names on the magazine's wish list who will never be removed no matter how old they get, and one of those names belongs to Sophia Loren, who reportedly is miffed for being offered only £100,000 for doffing her designer duds. This does not mean that if Hef ups the ante, she'll do the deed, but the sheer thought of it — well, do I actually want to see a 68-year-old Italian woman in a reasonable semblance of her birthday suit?

If you've read this site for more than twenty seconds, you already know the answer.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:27 AM)
18 January 2003
Carry on, my wayward sunworshippers

Jeff Jarvis, in the wake of 9/11:

So you can sneak a bomb in your shoe. The only solution is to fly naked. You can't bring anything on board; it all has to be shipped separately on cargo jet.

They weren't thinking about security, I suppose, but take a look at this:

Passengers aboard a May 3 chartered flight from Miami to Cancun, Mexico, dubbed "Naked-Air,'' will be free to drop their pants, shed their bras and underwear and move about the cabin au naturel. Castaways Travel, a Houston-area travel agency that specializes in "clothing-optional trips,'' is offering what it bills as the world's first all-nude flight for $499, round-trip.

Advantage: Jarvis.

Would I fly this thing? I don't know. Certainly if She Who Is Not To Be Named could be lured into the deal; but I am reasonably certain that whatever her wildest dreams, this isn't among them.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:23 PM)
25 April 2003
Not Bobby Bare, though

My list of People I Would Like To See, Just Once, In Their Birthday Suits is reasonably extensive, I think, but there are quite a few names — quite a few names associated with country music, in fact — higher on the list than those of the Dixie Chicks.

And there's always the question of whether Jeff Jarvis, who invented Entertainment Weekly way back when, would ever have imagined such a thing. (Jarvis did, briefly, put up a satire of the EW cover, but the less said about that, the better, especially since he's pulled it off his site already.)

Still, times are changing. The Dixie Chicks get naked on a magazine cover; Playboy's Playmate of the Year doesn't even rate a cover this year. Anne Garrels of National Public Radio contemplated doing nude broadcasts from Baghdad as a safety precaution. Various bloggers have put up pictures of themselves or others in varying degrees of undress. (No, I won't; I cannot afford to assume the responsibility for monitor damage.) I suppose this is a great time to be a voyeur, but frankly, I don't have the time.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:19 AM)
24 May 2003
Not a brief commentary

Do you dare to wear...the Underwear of Love?

(Note: Typically for a Saturday morning, I am typing this while, um, unclad. Having read the above piece, I am now almost afraid to get dressed.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:25 AM)
18 June 2003
No pockets?

Inspiration, they say, is where you find it, and I have no doubt that it's true; but please be advised that while I have some experience with the concept — don't even ask — I will not be emulating this guy on the World Tour.

(Via Fark)

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:18 PM)
16 August 2003
Received wisdom (one in a series)

Touchingly lyrical, yet totally vulgar, this High Truth straight from Donnaville:

I have never understood the reason for strip clubs for women. If a woman wants to see a naked man, all she has to do is ask.

(If I had the slightest bit of sense, I'd kill comments on this item. Fat chance.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:15 PM)
30 August 2003
Look at me, I'm not Sandra Dee

Michael Blowhard notes that scoping the babes isn't quite what it used to be:

[T]he girls and women remind me of the chic new architecture: a matter of ever-shifting translucent panes, of alluring surfaces twinkling one right behind another, all of them beguiling the eye while moving forward and back, in and out. Some people find this kind of thing to be bliss. I find it to be like an endless diet of whirling TV graphics. Walking around the city these days, I have to do my deliberate best not to walk into lampposts. Casual girlwatching used to be an easy-to-manage thing, something I could do semi-consciously. Now the pressure is so high and the attractions are so loud that it's almost impossible not to girlwatch.

Given my own history in this realm — yes, I look, and yes, I feel just a tad embarrassed for doing so, and yes, I would feel about 0.7 centimeters tall should the object of my gaze raise an objection — I can understand what he's going through, even though women on the Lone Prairie tend to be just a bit more conservative in their garb. It's almost an argument for shopping at the local flea market, where at least there's the theoretical expectation that no one's there to show off, though I'm not inclined to test this hypothesis personally.

Of course, gawking gets to be an ethical handful when the gawkee is underage, something some of us are more easily able to overlook than others, and the trends being what they are — well, let Michael finish the thought:

How much farther can it go? 14-year-old girls who will probably be my bosses in 14 more years are growing up in a world that takes Britney, Cristina and online porn for granted; they'll soon be pushing the boundaries a little farther. But once the waistline has sunk down to the pubic hairline, how can it go any lower? I have visions of waistlines continuing to sink and hemlines continuing to rise, and of a day when the two of them cross paths.

And if it does, all the pressure will be off. Few areas, I suspect, are quite as sexless as your average nude beach, partly because the proponents want it that way — keeps the complaints from politicians down, doncha know — but mostly because the reality is never (well, almost never) quite as wonderful as the fantasy.

Not that I care that Cameron Diaz gets an occasional zit.

Permalink to this item (posted at 12:01 PM)
6 September 2003
Breezing through work

I have lived nearly thirty years in central Oklahoma. During that time, I have delivered newspapers, and I have driven a car while unclothed.

It never occurred to me, however, to do both at once.

Permalink to this item (posted at 5:55 PM)
9 September 2003
A clarification of sorts

In today's Letter of the Day, Venomous Kate implies that I "got naked" for her, a phrase which presumes that I removed all my clothing at her request.

I did, I must point out, retain my Nike sport sandals.

Permalink to this item (posted at 2:52 PM)
3 November 2003
And no cover charge, either

It's called Naked Lunch, it's apparently the first clothing-optional restaurant not connected to an existing naturist resort, and it's not surprising that it's in Key West instead of, say, Duluth.

While it's not true that I'll doff my duds at the drop of someone else's hat, I do spend rather a lot of time unclad; still, I can't see myself joining in the frivolities. For one thing, there's no way to drive to Key West on the way to somewhere else, because Key West simply isn't on the way to anywhere else, with the possible exception of Uranus, and I don't really envision it as a final destination, especially since I'd have to go through Miami twice in the process, which is twice more than I'd like.

More to the point, Naked Lunch doesn't strike me as a really great place to take a date, and, well, I hate dining alone in public, no matter what I'm wearing.

(Via Fark)

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:27 PM)
26 January 2004
Now this

Catherine Bosley, the Ohio newsanchor who took off her clothes [link highly unsafe for work] during her Key West vacation and gave up her job after the photos were circulated on the Net, is defended by Mike Pechar:

Although high profile media people customarily have morals clauses in their contracts, her behavior in Key West was not necessarily immoral. She took her clothes off at a regularly planned event in a location where the behavior is considered acceptable.

A pornographic film actress just recently was on the ballot for the governorship of California and the morality of her behavior didn't disqualify her. By comparison, Catherine Bosley's behavior seems tame.

I'd agree with Mike that her behavior wasn't immoral — there are times when it's darn hard to keep clothes on me [visual not safe for anyone] — but I can see how the station management might have panicked: anything that might cost a tenth of a ratings point is to be avoided no matter what.

I had originally written something here about how difficult it might be to take Bosley seriously as a newscaster if all the guys are imagining what she looks like in her birthday suit, but it occurred to me about mid-sentence that guys probably do this routinely anyway.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:33 AM)
26 February 2004
Birthday suits, sort of

When last we left former news anchor Catherine Bosley, she had resigned her position at an Ohio television station.

Now Mike Pechar reports that Bosley is suing a number of Web sites that have been carrying the photos of her taken at that infamous Key West party, hoping to stop distribution. Says Pechar, it's probably too little, too late; is there anyone who hasn't seen them?

The general thinking around here is mostly "How do we get Amy McRee to take her clothes off?"

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:38 PM)
26 March 2004
Bosley of the month

On 26 January, I posted my first article on Catherine Bosley, the Ohio ex-anchor who partied hearty in Key West and paid dearly for it when the pictures showed up.

On 26 February, I noted that Bosley was suing to halt Internet distribution of said pictures.

Today being 26 March, I figured there had to be something Bosley-related in the news, and sure enough, the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the photos can circulate once more.

Surely there will be further developments, say, around the last week of April.

(Once again, via Interested-Participant.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 4:26 PM)
1 April 2004
Air mail

An observation to which I can relate, courtesy of Robb Hibbard (31 March, 5:15 pm):

[R]etrieving one's correspondence au naturel adds a little excitement to the venture, plus someone always comes along and offers to throw a t-shirt or something on you.

In my case, a tarp.

But inasmuch as I now live in an older neighborhood and have an actual mail slot in the door, rather than the much-hated (and, in this particular instance, badly-arranged) cluster boxes provided by the Pitiable Hovel, nobody's delicate sensibilities are affected.

Besides, I have no shortage of Ts.

Permalink to this item (posted at 4:56 PM)
25 May 2004
The secret of NIMBY

One of the things on my never-published (and with good reason) Things To Do Before I Croak list is "Dance naked in a thunderstorm."

I'm starting to believe that the possibility that I might actually do this, now that I have a semi-suitable venue for same, is warding off rain; precipitation is running about two-thirds below normal this month, and this is normally the dampest time of the year.

(No, I'm not getting out of bed at two in the morning to do this, unless I can't sleep to save my life.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:44 PM)
27 May 2004
Drippity drop and then some

Okay, it wasn't much of a thunderstorm.

But I gotta tell you, it was one hell of a dance.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:29 AM)
1 June 2004
For your eyes only

Somehow this just struck me as hilarious. The Bare Buns Family Nudist Club in northern Virginia has a collection of Frequently Asked Questions, and most of them are pretty much like the questions asked of other clothing-optional operations.

Except for this one:

Question: I have a government security clearance. Will I risk losing it by attending your parties?

Our membership includes people who work for the FBI, the CIA, Secret Service, and the Pentagon. Although some generally poorly informed people consider our activites controversial, the things we do are legal and wholesome, and the government's security people know that. The only way you could become a security risk through your participation in nudist activities is if you are so overly secretive that you think that you must at all costs prevent your parents, your employer, or someone else from finding out, which might make you subject to blackmail.

This doesn't mean that you must tell your family, friends, co-workers or your pastor that you've visited a nudist club, but that it would be OK if they were to somehow learn about your new interest.

When securing or renewing their security clearances, some people list the officials of our club as character references; the people who are investigating them seldom bat an eye when we confirm their participation in wholesome, family clothes-free activities.

I can't wait for this to come up in a Congressional hearing. "Yes, Senator, I did remove all my clothing, at an undisclosed location."

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:36 PM)
3 June 2004
Listening to everything

"Partly cloudy," said the Weather Guys, and so it was, but I figured enough stray rays were filtering into my back yard to justify grabbing a few, and so I did.

Away from the street, it's fairly quiet; the first noise I heard was the sound of a dozen birds taking off once they heard the back door opening. Well, fine, be that way, I thought; normally they tend to sit there and stare, or if they sense that yard work is about to be performed, they wait for some fresh surfaces to explore, but generally they don't split all at once.

In the absence of flapping wings — their chirping session usually ends around sunrise — I tuned into some of the other noises around: the high-pitched buzz of the resident insects, the wind (down around 8 mph, which is way low for here) rustling the leaves above me, air conditioners cycling on and off, and the occasional passing vehicle with the stereo turned up to a Spinal Tap-like eleven.

Then there was that loud crashing noise from a house on the next block, which definitely broke the mood of the moment and left me wondering if maybe I'd stayed out just a few seconds too long. Nothing — at least, nothing on this side of the fence — lasts forever.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:27 PM)
14 June 2004
The longest days

Sunrise this morning came at 6:14, which is about as early as it can get around here. Sunset will be at 8:47; over the next week or so, it will slide toward 8:50 before retreating again after the summer solstice.

One of my goals this summer is to banish, at least temporarily, my normal sickly whiter-shade-of-pale coloring. This could be rather easily done by lying in the sun for extended intervals, but there are good and sensible reasons not to do this: apart from the increased threat of melanoma, the medication I take to regulate my blood pressure bears a warning about excessive sun. (I have read the prescribing information on the drug, and the real danger seems to lie in fluid depletion.) With short but concentrated exposures — twenty to thirty-five minutes per day — I seem to be suffering no side effects, and areas that don't get any sun during the work day have gradually darkened from "born gosling" to "underdone pork," which I reckon to be an improvement.

Of course, the single darkest body part will be the left arm, for obvious automotive reasons.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:31 AM)
15 June 2004
Strapped for time

Lynn doesn't see anything wrong with guys wearing sandals, at least in a casual context. Fair enough, I suppose, since there are substantial periods of time when that's all I'm wearing, and you can't get much more casual than that.

Well, yeah, okay, there's the wristwatch. Big deal. It's a Casio and it's twenty-five years old. I've now spent more on batteries than I did buying the darn thing in the first place. And it keeps fairly lousy time, though I figure that most of mine is borrowed anyway.

What? No. No pictures. Go away.

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:39 AM)
31 July 2004
Humble folk without temptation

While I found this piece reasonably interesting, one sentence did jump out at me:

One minor surprise was discovering that nudists can also be conservative Republicans.

Well, yes, there are some grim, puritanical, sexless drones on the right side of the spectrum, but that hardly describes everyone over there; it doesn't even describe a majority of conservative Christians, a decidedly smaller subset, the stereotype of whom is presumably being extended here to the entire GOP, even though it's palpably false. [Link NSFW]

Admittedly, your serious nudists don't even mention sex if they can help it; however, I suspect their official disinterest is intended specifically to keep pervs at bay.

Permalink to this item (posted at 5:25 PM)
6 August 2004
The limits of bareability

Evolving Beauty [title page possibly not safe for work, subsequent pages almost certainly NSFW] is a collection of photographs by Eric Boutilier-Brown.

Susanna Cornett is impressed by some of the photos, not impressed by others, and by her own admission somewhat conflicted:

I find myself torn on the issue of these nude photographs. Obviously these are real people, without clothes, and a real person photographed them. Issues of modesty (or the lack thereof) are rampant, and not, in my judgment, unimportant. However, the photos that I like the best are not overtly sexual, but rather positioning the human body as an element of nature, the juxtaposition a celebration of the beauty of the human form and its connection to other parts of nature. The images where the model is the central point, not the blending of the model and nature, I find much less compelling and nothing out of the usual. I find myself philosophically opposed to nude photography, yet aesthetically drawn to the photos of the type I point out above. I don't think nudity in and of itself is wrong, and I think we should all be comfortable with our bodies. However, I agree both theologically and practically with the Biblical strictures of modesty, for exactly the reasons the Bible states that it's important. Our society is too cavalier about both sex and nudity already.

It's a dilemma. And I'm not quite sure how to resolve it.

I think part of the problem is the coupling of "sex and nudity" as a single concept, as many people (though not Susanna, I suspect) do; while nudity certainly facilitates sex, it doesn't imply it, unless you've somehow acquired the notion that apart from bathroom functions, the only reason to take off your clothes is to have sex. Any semi-serious skinnydipper knows better than that.

Still, discerning intention occasionally requires some work. Flashing a barista is very likely an act of exhibitionism, something not to be encouraged officially. (My apologies in advance to baristas.) Camping nude in a national park (which is not generally illegal under Federal law) probably isn't, but it could be. Dressing up with the hope that one's garb will lead to what Helen Gurley Brown once called "getting Dial spelled backwards" likely is.

I'm not going to suggest that everyone shuck his duds for the sheer delight of it. (Of course, if you do, I'm not going to complain, unless you do it in my driveway.) But it might not be a bad idea to create a little Garden of Eden of your own, outdoors if you dare, indoors if you don't — provided, of course, you keep in mind what happened in the first one.

(Disclosure: Written while dressed.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:12 PM)
28 August 2004
See how serious we are?

About ten weeks ago, Susanna Cornett cast aspersions on the whole idea of nude protest:

I've never quite gotten why stripping down to bare skin must be seen as some type of political statement. The stated reason is that it's showing your vulnerability, it's showing how much you're willing to risk to make a point, etc.

Except, of course, that it doesn't actually do that:

[T]he mental imagery of a bunch of old flabby men whipping past in the all-together aside, protesting nude is less about protesting and more about exhibitionism. I'm also not moved by those "empowered women" who formed the word "Peace" with their naked bodies. None of them made true sacrifices, at least not the kind that actually move forward a cause. It is, ultimately, all about self and self-actualization.

Despite my status as an old flabby man in his birthday suit, I had to agree with her assessment. At best, a nude protest tends to trivialize the cause supposedly being advanced. And yes, I'm aware of the presumed body hangups of our ostensibly Puritan society and all that, and they don't make the slightest bit of difference; unless nudity is actually germane to the issue — say, trying to get a section of public beach set aside for clothing-optional use — it reduces the credibility of the protest.

Older than I, but not flabby, Acidman says basically the same thing, but more directly:

Literally showing your ass DOES NOT reinforce whatever argument you have. Pulling a stunt such as that one makes you appear to be a crazed, leftist flake — a typical, left-dingbat, screeching, feces-flinging monkey. By the time you are arrested for lewd conduct, nobody remembers what you were protesting.

What were those people in New York screaming about, anyway?

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:12 AM)
12 September 2004
PJ and the bare

In regard to that Jonathan Klein crack about the typical blogger being "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas," I wish to state for the record that I haven't owned any pajamas for approximately thirty-five years.

And that's nothing, compared to this: Beth Donovan isn't even a guy, let alone a pajama owner.

(And apparently she doesn't always sit in her living room, either.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:44 AM)
2 October 2004
So how's it, um, hangin'?

I get some odd email at times, but nothing quite as odd as this item sent to Michele:

Is there a correlation between a man's political affiliation and the side he "dresses" to, i.e., which side of his zipper his package goes or which way his member points when he's naked and not erect.

Having read sixty comments on that post, I conclude that there is not.

Or I could have just looked down.

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:33 AM)
18 November 2004
Perfunctory coverage

So I'm reading up (that's my story, and I'm sticking to it) on anchor Sharon Reed of WOIO-TV in Cleveland, who doffed her duds for one of Spencer Tunick's, um, live exhibits, and what occurs to me first isn't "Wow, a babe" or "Surely this isn't La Shawn's kid sister" or anything like that.

Instead, I thought back to the first of the year, when the Catherine Bosley story broke, remembered that she had been an anchor in Youngstown, and wondered: Just what is it in northeast Ohio that seems to make women want to take their clothes off? And is the Repository hiring?

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:36 PM)
6 January 2005
Vintage cheesecake

Like many organizations, the Green-Walled Garden Club (one of the Whittier names I've heard lately) of Frederick, Maryland has issued a cookbook as a fundraising tool.

Unlike many organizations, the Club has chosen to, um, spice up its cookbook: in addition to the recipes, there are a dozen photos of club members, aged 55 to 70, in varying degrees of undress. "Everyone does a cookbook," says member Marianne Coss. "We needed a gimmick."

It will be a while before I've sampled more than a handful of the 800-odd recipes in the book — this Pork with Red Plum Sauce (page 177) looks interesting — but I doubt I'll be able to convince anyone I bought this purely for prandial purposes.

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:18 PM)
25 January 2005
Out of the blue

The operator of a Deborah Gibson fan page is heartbroken at the news that the Debster will be appearing in a Playboy pictorial.

Says the fan, the news is "still not being officially released (except to paying fanclub members of the official Deborah website)."

Liz Smith has the story now, and her reaction is pretty much the same as mine:

I never know what to think of the taking-it-off-for-Playboy route. Sometimes it works, but just as often it doesn't. (Yes, everyone oohs and aahs and speculates if Playboy has furnished said naked lady with new breasts, a trimmer bottom, a perkier nose, whatever. But careers are not always enhanced.)

Personally, I can't think of anything of Deb's that needed improvement, but then I'm not the guy paying $5 for the issue. (The price by subscription is more like $2.91.)

And how surprised should I be, anyway? She did Broadway Bares way back in '98. Besides, she's in her middle thirties by now, and frankly, I grow weary of the endless procession of 19-year-olds chez Hef.

Permalink to this item (posted at 1:06 PM)
6 March 2005
Drawing attention

They say that art and pain are intimately intertwined, and I'm inclined to agree; if I had to stand perfectly still with my clothes off in front of a bunch of art students for forty-five minutes, I'd scream.

Of course, they'd probably scream at the thought of having to look at me for forty-five minutes.

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:37 AM)
8 April 2005
Trumpet involuntary

Fridays are always hectic for me, and when this one proved to be slightly less so than average, I decided I'd mow the front lawn, which, as always, is a dispiriting sort of activity, inasmuch as at this time of year actual grass makes up maybe twenty-five percent of the stuff that's too tall. (Mental note: Call landscape architect, prepare for huge bills.)

And when this tedious task was over and I'd put the equipment away, I went out back and sprawled under a sweetgum tree, and let the memories of work slide off into nowhere. Background music, as always, was provided by the rest of the world: the dull rumble of traffic at a distance, occasionally sharpened by the sound of a car on my block; the hundred billion or so insects that live near my back door; dozens of birds playing call-and-response in every key of the scale and a few that fall somewhere in between. I looked up through the still-sort-of-bare branches and noted the color of the sky, and thought, "This would be a really good blue for a sea, you know?"

As if on cue, somebody in his first week of learning trumpet from an old fake book (I'm guessing) broke into the first three bars of "Anchors Aweigh," and that's about as far as he got before delivering a sour note. The birds went into "What the hell?" mode and clammed up. He tried again, and flubbed a different note this time, then presumably turned the page and went on to something either less difficult and unrecognizable or more difficult and unrecognizable.

He'll get better. (Even I, the world's third-worst pianist, can occasionally render some semblance of a tune.) And really, I was grateful for the interruption: it was definitely an improvement over thinking about yard work yet undone.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:29 PM)
15 April 2005
Sand in low places

Lilly Valley, a naturist club in Fort Erie, Ontario, has announced its new single-day ground-fee schedule, and you can read all manner of things into the numbers:

$35.00 per day. Couples and Family.
$30.00 per day. Single Males.
$25.00 per day. Single Women.
$25.00 per day. Teen Couples (16-19)
$20.00 per day. Teen Males (16-19)
$10.00 per day. Teen Women (16-19)

I am not particularly surprised that single males over 19 pay a higher rate — a disproportionate number of them, I am told, behave badly under the circumstances — but I am a bit surprised at the deep discounts being offered teenagers. (Students 20 and up get a $5 break off the adult rate.)

Or maybe I'm not so surprised. One thing that the reputable clubs have in common is strict supervision, and sexual activity is very much frowned upon. For all I know, the teens may be better off dancing in the buff than going off drinking after the prom. (No, I haven't asked my own children what they think: for one thing, they're out of their teens, thank you very much; for another, they'd probably be horrified that anyone does this sort of thing.)

And if the message boards I've seen that are devoted to this topic are any indication, clubs of this sort are largely populated with people even older than I am, in which case some new blood is probably long overdue.

Permalink to this item (posted at 3:08 AM)
17 April 2005
Wilson mode: ON

If I'm working in the front yard, neighbors will usually say hello, and I'll occasionally get a wave from people walking through the area, which is a definite change from the days in the old CrappiFlat™, where people kept to themselves if they possibly could.

In the back yard, I'm not generally visible, and there's a fence surrounding the area that's as tall as I am, further shrouding the premises, so no one acknowledges my presence out back, and given my particular predilections, this is probably a Good Thing.

Then today: "Hello!"

I figured it probably wasn't for me anyway, and ignored it.

On the third "Hello!" I dragged myself over to the fence, and there was your basic Sweet Little Old Lady, apparently a dweller in the apartments on the adjacent block. Given the topography of the area, which slopes down from the west side of my house, she was basically staring me in the navel, or could have been had it not been for the fence and the trees on its far side.

And it was a tree she wanted to talk about. "This apricot tree hangs over on your side," she said.

I pointed out that I kept the more blatant intrusions trimmed back, and had in fact pruned a few branches this morning. "It's not time yet, but when they're ripe, would you mind terribly if I gathered them from your yard?"

"It didn't produce much of anything last year," I noted.

She apparently remembered the previous owners, didn't recognize me, and figured that she'd renew an existing arrangement. Which was fine with me. "Just come around to the gate." No harm done; I wasn't planning to pick them, and I was happy not to have provoked a discussion of my attire.

And then: "You're working on getting a tan?"

Um, yes, I was. "It's good for me."

Apparently it was good enough for her, too. "Thank you." And she disappeared into the mysterious wilderness next door.

Maybe I won't trim too narrowly this year, although any branches that protrude through the fence are going to be gone the moment I see them.

Permalink to this item (posted at 1:11 PM)
2 May 2005
Does two make a trend?

Earlier this year, I wrote about the Green-walled Garden Club of Frederick, Maryland, which issued a cookbook as a fundraiser in which the recipe sections were set off by photographs of club members, 55 and up, in "varying degrees of undress." (It's still available here.)

Now a California group is doing likewise. Making It with the Canyon Ladies is a fundraiser for the Colman Museum in Centerville, outside Chico. Each of the Canyon Ladies, ranging from fortysomething to eightysomething, poses with an artifact from the Museum.

Did Calendar Girls really start all this? And, more important, do I need another cookbook?

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:32 AM)
3 May 2005
Sauna aesthetics

Paul Musgrave is amused, or nauseated, or something, by the thought of these people with their clothes off:

Brussels being Brussels, a 10-point directive on the proper use of the [European Commission office's] sauna was sent to the assorted Eurocrats, the Telegraph wrote: "Nudity is de rigueur, according to the commission's infrastructure office, but bravado is not. 'Reckless competition about who stands heat best is out of the question. Leave your clothes in the dressing room — nakedness is natural,' the code tells its 18 male and seven female commissioners." The facility is mixed, but limited to commissioners, heads of cabinet and VVIPs.

I am, of course, a NVIPAA (Not Very Important Person At All), but I'm thinking that wardrobe considerations in a sauna are just about enough to peg the Futility Meter; it's rather disheartening to see allegedly-sophisticated Europeans (who, after all, aren't Americans and therefore are supposed to have cultural values that extend beyond McDonald's and the Hummer) having to be told to doff their duds at 180 degrees Fahrenheit.

And, as Ford Prefect reminds us, it's useful to know where your towel is.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:45 AM)
6 May 2005
Product placement

A chap on one of the message boards I read describes himself as a "card-carrying nudist."

Nothing wrong with that, but I really don't want to know where he carries the card.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:46 PM)
17 May 2005
Make mine an aisle seat

Might as well give it away in the first couple of paragraphs:

Some United Airlines employees at risk of losing their shirt are taking it all off instead.

A group of five flight attendants who are at risk of having their pension plans terminated decided to show some skin in a 2006 calendar titled "Stewardesses Stripped (Of Their Pension?)" to publicize their plight.

At the moment, StewsStripped.com isn't is working.

Queen of Sky notes:

[N]o, these women are not risking their jobs, since United flight attendants have a union to protect them.

And no, Q of S herself wouldn't pose for such a thing. I think.

(Updated with a proper Q of S link.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:54 AM)
18 May 2005
Get dressed, dammit

Rusty Pearl's Captain Plectrum lists some laws regulating nudity which fall under the general heading of "At the time, it seemed like the logical thing to do."

Mike at Okiedoke homed in on this one:

Oklahoma women may not gamble in the nude, or lingerie, or whilst wearing a towel.

The Captain speculates that it's to curb the advantage they might otherwise enjoy, but Mike sees another angle:

So, only men can "lose their shirt" gambling?

Me, I wonder if this law is extensible to, say, strip Scrabble®.

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:01 AM)
21 May 2005
Roommate wanted, no clothing

I learned a long time ago that I wasn't going to be anyone's ideal roommate; I'm way too cranky and possessed of some odd quirks. [Aren't all quirks odd by definition? Shut up.]

Then again, if I had a Tribeca penthouse to share, I might be tempted to be this picky myself:

Next, do you (the potential roommate) have to be a nudist? Yes, being a nudist is a "lifestyle" for lack of a better term. Although there is always the initial cheep thrill, I enjoy the freedom of running around naked and so should you. Does this mean I do this in public. Not usually but I may visit the occasional nudist beach (you do not have to come).

Do you have to be a goddess. No but I am not looking for the usual nudist eye pollution either. You do not have to be a model or look like you stepped off a mens magazine but you should be in shape, well groomed (not a hippy all natural type) and have a great smile.

Well, if you gotta dream, dream big. And anyway, in New York, he'll have no trouble filling this position, unless all the nudist women are also spelling freaks. (If this latter describes you, write me. Please.)

(Via Joey McKeown.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:25 AM)
28 May 2005
Now that's an open house

File this under Things I Never Would Have Guessed but Perhaps Should Have:

Last year, her first in the business working with Classic Realty Group in Hollywood [Florida], she sold a small home to a young family of nudists for slightly less than $400,000, a preconstruction condominium to a single nudist man for $369,000 and an older unit on the Intracoastal Waterway to a nudist couple from New Jersey for $250,000.

Those people were ''in their early 40s, very cool, very nice,'' she said.

Nudists in general are a Realtor's dream, demographically speaking.

''They tend to be a little older, probably a little more settled, at a stage in life where they're looking to buy a home,'' Roberts said. "And, of course, they like sunshine and the beach.''

It was sorta cloudy today, wasn't it?

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:02 PM)
29 May 2005
Return of the neighbor

I was in the driveway this morning, trimming mulberry branches that were hanging low and might scrape someone's car roof, when the sweet little old lady from this article waved at me from what used to be across the fence. We talked about trees, the previous residents, Decoration Day — those "younger folk" don't seem to understand what it all means, we agreed — and the inconveniences of the ongoing sewer-line work.

Fortunately, we didn't discuss wardrobe issues.

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:17 AM)
13 June 2005
And away it goes

Last month I wrote about a new semi-risqué calendar intended to draw attention to the growing pension crisis, or something like that.

I have now received a copy of said calendar, and here's the explanation on the back:

Will your pension/retirement fund be there for you when you need it? Our mission is to create a national awareness to the naked truth that no retirement fund is completely secure and that there is a definite crisis in the pension guaranty system. Make certain that your retirement plan is not sitting on a time bomb. Take an active role in your future and start now to plan for your retirement years. You can never start too soon.

And from whom are you getting this worthwhile advice?

We are retired and active flight attendants who began our flying careers in the 1960s and early 1970s when we were called "Stewardesses" or "Stews". We are single, we are married, we have children in college, and one of us is a grandmother. We have enjoyed the very best of times and we have experienced the worst of times in the airline industry. Presently, we are facing the frightening probability that our "guaranteed" pension will be terminated. To all who believe that their pension is safe and secure, we hope our message gives you a wakeup call.

Nor does it hurt that they are, um, scantily clad on the twelve pages of this 2006 calendar. These aren't your airbrushed beauties from your lad mags, and some of them have rolled up quite a few miles, but what the hell; at least it makes more sense than bicycling nude to protest oil consumption, which strikes me as downright painful.

You can order this for yourself at StewsStripped.com. It's $14.95 plus a buck and a quarter for shipping, and they're definitely undercharging for the shipping: mine came Priority Mail, which runs $3.85 or so.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:15 AM)
18 June 2005
Vacations with a peel

James Joyner has his doubts about the reported increased demand for nude or clothing-optional recreation:

[T]here are 290-odd million Americans. How many of them are engaging in nude vacations is not mentioned in the report. The fact that they had to use a file photo [in the wire story] may be an indication that the trend is not so large after all.

I'm guessing it's bigger than he thinks, but not enough to be a true "trend"; those who partake are extremely enthusiastic, but converts to the cause are few and far between, and the willingness to set one's clothing aside around the house, or in the back yard, doesn't necessarily translate into a willingness to do so in front of the whole darn world already.

Still, it's an industry with its own specialists. The biggest question for now is whether younger folks will take to it; right now nude recreation is largely perceived as an activity for older people who just don't give a flip anymore.

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:32 AM)
22 June 2005
Unadorned, as it were

Matthew, motivated by this post from Miriam, urges that this Friday's postings be done unclothed.

I will, of course, comply, unless I happen to post something from the workplace.

(Suggested by Michele, who is inspiration enough.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:42 AM)
24 June 2005
Beyond threadbare

Were it not for the roof over my head, I would be skyclad right now. (If that doesn't repel the bulldozers, nothing will.)

As promised, any post I do today that isn't written at work (during breaks, of course) will be written while unclothed. I hasten to point out that this isn't as big a deal as it may seem, since (1) this requires basically no adjustment of my regular routine and (2) rather a lot of people have been doing this all along.

And no, I'm not taking my clothes off in the office. For one thing, there's a server in there, and its temperature preferences take precedence over mine. For another, I have a leather chair.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:22 AM)
23 July 2005
52 hours

Which is a personal best.

Unfortunately, I have to go to the grocery store.

Permalink to this item (posted at 3:00 PM)
29 July 2005
That's some utility belt

Although I'd probably giggle (and then turn beet red) if I used the word "dropcloth" around him.

Oh, and he's hiring, too.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:01 AM)
6 August 2005
Putzing around the yard

Someone was kind enough to send word of World Naked Gardening Day, and I'm happy to pass it along, but I am compelled to point out that for all its presumed joys, there are distinct disadvantages to doing this sort of thing:

  • "Hmmm. I wonder if that could have been poison oak."
  • Entirely too many tools with big, sharp blades.
  • "Now we'll just pull this back away from the fence, and — oh, hi, Mrs Grabarkewitz."
  • Police helicopters.
  • "I thought I trimmed that rosebush already."
  • Sunscreen and Miracle-Gro don't mix.
  • "Those damn bugs get into everything."
  • String trimmers.

Trust me on most of these.

Permalink to this item (posted at 12:51 PM)
29 August 2005
Somehow I can't see this happening

I think we can consider this wholly unexpected:

"The lagoon's waters are warmed by a state-of-the-art process I developed in tandem with Wakanda's greatest scientists called ... thermal dynamics! Care to join me for ... a dip?"

"But I ... I don't have a bathing suit!"

The engineer in question is none other than T'Challa, the Black Panther; the reluctant (at that point) swimming companion is Susan Richards, née Storm, one-quarter of the Fantastic Four.

Yes, she went in; yes, she was married to Reed Richards at the time; no, she didn't put her powers to use.

(It's a flashback in Marvel Knights 4 #21. Really.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:22 AM)
10 September 2005
Sunshine on my shoulder

And elsewhere, today being World Naked Gardening Day.

Discover magazine (October) asked Dr Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "Why aren't people getting enough Vitamin D these days?" His response:

Vitamin D is unusual in that we don't get it from our food: we synthesize it by being out in the sun. But our whole cultural evolution has been to remove us from sunlight. We live in houses, drive cars, work inside, watch television inside. In the northern part of the United States, even if you do go outside in the winter, the sun isn't high enough on the horizon to activate the synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. Meanwhile, we've also learned that skin cancer can result from excessive radiation, so we're now covering ourselves and putting on lotion to avoid sunburn. That further reduces the amount of vitamin D we can make. The truth is that we were made to run around in warm weather without our clothes on.

And, occasionally, to bend over and pull a weed or two.

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:52 AM)
20 September 2005
Yet another fundraising calendar

What is it that makes middle-aged women want to take their clothes off? (Believe me, if I knew, I wouldn't have time to post here.)

Desperate times call for desperate measures, say the librarians of the Outagamie Waupaca Library System in Wisconsin, and so half a dozen of them have doffed their duds in the hopes of luring your dollars. (It started out as a gag, and, well, got totally out of hand; been there, done that.)

The Library System would like you to know that this is not an official project. That said, if you want a copy, send a check for $20 plus $2.50 shipping to Desperate Librarians, E6282 Slough Road, Weyauwega, WI 54983-8843.

(Via Fark)

Permalink to this item (posted at 3:40 PM)
23 September 2005
Insert "down under" joke here

The Burnett Shire Council has proposed establishing a nude beach in Queensland, and not everyone, apparently, is clear on the concept. Council member Gillian Archibald supports the move, but first it had to be explained to her:

"The Free Beach Association came to me and I said 'all our beaches are free', cause I thought they actually meant by the cost," Ms Archibald explains, "but they were talking about clothes free."

But fellow Council member Maurice Chapman sees danger:

"Unadorned worms are preyed upon by birds. Whilst we may be animals we are superior to the others and we need to have human dignity."

I suspect most of the birds will have little interest in the worms on display, but maybe that's just me. And shopkeeper Michael Collins has a point:

"The tourists would be one thing — but friends and neighbours? When you have a look at some of our neighbours here, that's a bit of a scary thought."

The shire's proposal to the Queensland government should be formalized by the end of the year.

(Via Fark)

Permalink to this item (posted at 11:46 AM)
6 October 2005
How desperate are they?

A few weeks back I muttered something incoherent about "Desperate Librarians", partly because I'm a sucker for goofy calendars featuring individuals in varying degrees of undress, and partly because I wanted to see if "Weyauwega" is really spelled like that. (It is.)

As for the calendar itself, which bears the cutesy tag "The Book Stops Here," it's quite a bit more modest than the usual run of such things, and each of the staffers is hiding behind a book with a work-related "title" Photoshopped thereupon. The librarian inclined to reveal the least is Miss June, whose large-format volume is emblazoned "librarians definitely should wear clothes." Certainly at work: it's probably cold in there.

I suspect this particular cultural artifact is on a vertical trajectory, the shark waiting below; whether the vector is upward or downward remains to be seen.

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:21 PM)
11 November 2005
This is my rifle, this is my gun

I'd never given any thought to it, and Lynn probably wishes she'd never given any thought to it; I have no doubt she could have done without the visuals.

Five-word summary: "concealed carry at nudist camp". Any more than that and I'll have to figure out some way to offer downloadable Pepto-Bismol® or something.

Permalink to this item (posted at 3:17 PM)
7 January 2006
Dat ol' debbil moon

A judge in Montgomery County, Maryland has ruled that mooning someone does not constitute an act of indecent exposure.

Raymond McNealy, 44, of Rockville, had a dispute with a neighbor; he expressed his opinion in a graphic, if not necessarily callipygian, manner. Originally, the courts found against McNealy; in his appeal, he claimed that state law demanded a more, um, frontal assault for conviction, and this week the appeal was upheld.

Counsel for McNealy remarked that the decision should "bring comfort to all beachgoers and plumbers" in the Old Line State.

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:16 PM)
10 January 2006
Advantages of Western civilization

Somehow I can't imagine this catching on in the States:

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University's faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), "being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage".

The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream's popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday's Al-Masri Al-Yom, Egypt's leading independent daily newspaper.

I've got to wonder if this is why he's the former dean. But it gets better:

During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: "Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy."

"Of course"?

For his part, Al-Azhar's fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other's genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.

Suddenly, demure Wendy Shalit comes off as a wild-eyed libertine.

The only way this could possibly be beneficial is if one of the participants looks like me.

(Via aldahlia.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 2:37 PM)
5 March 2006
The argument for cloth upholstery

A survey of telecommuters says that about a tenth of them work without clothing.

While the most popular attire seems to be sweats — 39 percent of respondents wore them — 12 percent of the men and 7 percent of the women surveyed wore nothing at all.

Yes, I know I'm in the wrong business.

(Via Fark.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:07 PM)
10 March 2006
Pity the seats

The Mayor of the Tasman District on the South Island of New Zealand has called for the cancellation of a clothing-optional bicycle race for reasons of safety: the riders won't be wearing, um, helmets.

Local police said they had no legal justification to intervene, which prompted Mayor John Hurley to say:

They have ridden bikes in the past down the road with no crash helmets, no nothing on and people say that's a double standard.

But is it a double offense?

(Via Fark.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:19 AM)
9 April 2006
The Vitamin D test

The idea this afternoon was to drag the notebook outside and test for the feasibility of backyard blogging/sunbathing.

Positives:

  • The Wi-Fi signal reaches just about anywhere in the back yard with at least 11 Mbit/sec. I didn't test out front, but since the house is pretty much in the center of the lot, I'd expect similar results in the front yard.

  • Surprisingly high novelty value, at least at first.

  • All the usual advantages of soaking up the sun.

Negatives:

  • The more sun you have, the harder it is to read the screen.

  • All the usual disadvantages of soaking up the sun.

Call it a qualified success for now.

Permalink to this item (posted at 5:46 PM)
25 April 2006
Maybe he can build a dresser

I realize I have no room to talk about this guy, but:

Oakland, Calif., cops arrested a carpenter who likes to practice his craft as nature intended after a client returned home early and busted the craftsman building bookcases in his birthday suit.

Percy Honniball was charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure for the incident, the Associated Press reports.

But Honniball insists his penchant for working in the nude isn't for pleasure. He says that when he's building things in the buff he has a greater range of motion — and it prevents him from soiling his clothes.

One word, Perce: splinters.

(Via Tinkerty Tonk.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 7:37 PM)
1 May 2006
I thought it said "dude ranch"

Tucson's La Tierra Linda Guest Ranch Resort, a favorite getaway for Hollywood types in the 1930s, has changed both its name (it's now Mira Vista) and its dress code (you no longer have to).

As usual with clothing-optional resorts, you're expected to be on your best behavior regardless of your lack of attire: says co-owner Dave Landman, you shouldn't do anything you wouldn't do in your mother's living room. I'm sure my mother would have pitched a fit if I'd showed up without my pajamas, but that was, like, years ago.

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:18 AM)
21 May 2006
Younger and darker

Based on no personal experience whatsoever, I figured that the primary market for nude recreation is, well, me: an old more-or-less white guy. This notion has been continually reinforced by endless discussions on message boards of the ongoing failure to attract a younger and/or more ethnically-diverse clientele at the parks and resorts.

Color me wrong on all counts:

15% of adults consider a resort that offers a nude recreation experience extremely desirable;

Significant differences stand out with Echo-Boomers and Xers interest in nude recreation overtaking that of the Boomers and Matures. The percentage of adults who consider a nude recreation experience extremely/very desirable include:

  • 23% of Echo-Boomers (born since 1979)
  • 18% of Xers (born from 1965 through 1978)
  • 15% of Boomers (born from 1946 through 1964)
  • 12% of Matures (born before 1946)

Non-whites (28%) and African Americans (30%) find nude recreation experiences more desirable than their white counterparts (13%).

I should point out here that I have two children, a very early Echo-Boomer and one of the last of the Xers, and both of them would be horrified at such a thing.

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:01 AM)
25 May 2006
I suppose I should feel better

A fiftysomething Welsh woman has been cleared of an indecent-exposure charge after a male neighbor videotaped her sunbathing nude in her back yard and took the tape to the police.

The magistrates ruled that she did not intend to cause "harm or distress" and dismissed the charge; the woman said she was relieved by the ruling, and was planning to move to another presumably less-prudish neighborhood.

What strikes me as odd about this is that the incident, as it were, took place last July: it took them ten months to rule on this case? And I thought American courts were overloaded.

(Via Fark.com.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:00 PM)
15 June 2006
Thread count

Gerard Van der Leun, presumably not in his capacity as editor-in-chief for Pajamas Media, is asking bloggers to disclose their preferred sleepwear.

For the most obvious reason, I had to decline. Still, for those who must wear something, this sounds pretty good:

These days what I most like to sleep in are huge men's XXXL cotton t-shirts washed within an inch of their life for premium softness.

If I really thought it would help, I'd go start the washing machine. On the other hand, I'd have to go down a size.

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:54 AM)
16 June 2006
A tradition in the making

Well, they tried it last year, anyway, and nobody seemed particularly embarrassed, so let it be known that this is the 2nd International Co-Ed Nekkid Blogging Day, and while there are some things I have to do today with actual clothes on (shudder), today's posts will not be among them.

Be grateful I don't have a webcam.

Among the participants: Air Force Wife, miriam's ideas, Scribal Terror, Lies and Statistics, Curses and Chrome, Cream of the Crock, is this blog on?, Sereena X, Tinkerty Tonk, Wind Rider, Cowboy Blob.

Permalink to this item (posted at 9:06 AM)
20 June 2006
What can Brown do for you?

I thought I'd already covered this, so to speak, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that not everyone is in a position to benefit from my misexperience, as witness the following:

As the season of high grass and even higher pollen counts is upon us I thought this an opportune time to pass along a useful yard care tip: NEVER use a weed whacker in the nude.

You may wonder how I came by this insight. The Lady of the House had re-reminded me (not too gently) that something around our shack was going to get a whack and it was going to be either domestic tranquility or weeds. Well, it was a pretty hot day and I figured whacking weeds would also lead to washing dirty, sweaty clothes. Unless, and here a little light went on in my head, unless I wasn't wearing any clothes! Why not? We're on a steep hill with big trees. No one can see into our back yard. So I put on my black Converse high-tops, took off everything else, and fired up the noisiest contraption west of Cape Canaveral.

This in itself isn't necessarily troublesome. But then:

I suppose that elsewhere there are UPS deliverymen, but none, as far as I can tell, have been assigned our address. No, we have delivery persons. As everyone knows, person is a non-gender specific term meaning female.

I was swinging to my right to cut a swath when I saw her standing there with a package in her hands and a grin on her face. This took my attention off what I was doing, which is never a good idea with power tools.

The thing came after me faster than you can say things you ought not say. Who would have thought a little nylon string could hurt so much? The next instant I was hopping around like crazy trying to grab my mutilated left leg and regain control of the weed whacker at the same time. Tears were rolling down both our faces, but for entirely different reasons.

To give the guy credit, at least he wore some semi-substantial shoes. I still have scars from a non-powered incident, involving sport sandals and some clumsy handling of an ordinary garden rake.

And, well, you have to figure that UPS has seen everything by now.

(Via Fark.com)

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:38 AM)
8 July 2006
Flash!

The sleepy 'burbs of The Village and Nichols Hills have been awakened by a visiting perv who apparently has been making the rounds for quite some time.

Typical incident:

A woman in the 1100 block of Sherwood Lane in Nichols Hills told police a man followed her to a parking area about 9 p.m. [Thursday], then exposed himself and began masturbating when she got out of her car. He wore only socks and tennis shoes.

I suggest that if you encounter this guy, you point and laugh; it should kill whatever groove he thinks he's in.

(And if you ever see me wearing only socks and tennis shoes, you'll see a lawn mower in front of me, and I'll wonder what you're doing peeking into my back yard.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:55 AM)
10 July 2006
Fundraiser in the buff rebuffed

The ban on "commercial or recreational activities" at Kansas' Lake Edun nudist facility apparently includes political fundraising: the state Libertarian Party was blocked from holding a three-day gathering at Lake Edun last weekend and had to move elsewhere on short notice.

The event was billed as Return to Edun, Return to Liberty, and this was part of the party's pitch:

The unregulated use of private property is one of the least divisive issues among Libertarians; and since the convoluted 2005 Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, Libertarians have been solidly on the forefront of the movement to protect the rights of property owners to use, retain, and dispose of their land as they wsh, as long as they do not harm others.

For nearly a decade, the government of Shawnee County has attempted to restrict the activities of peaceful citizens on the private property southwest of Topeka known as Lake Edun. In doing so, they apply a standard of commercial activity not enforced anywhere else in the county.

Under the court order, Lake Edun must get a permit for any proscribed activities, but the county has so far refused to issue any permits, perhaps hoping that the couple who owns the property — ownership of the resort is vested in a foundation — will give up and move away. They haven't.

(Via Fark.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 3:15 PM)
13 July 2006
Warm dipstick

Working on one's car in the altogether, as did some goofball in Broken Arrow, is not advisable, says Mike:

With the constant threat of pinch points, any decent mechanic takes measures to protect his digits.

Then again, if he'd been decent — but never mind. You'll recall that a motor vehicle depends on hot and nasty fluids, which you don't want to encounter under uncontrolled conditions.

And I need hardly point out that doing this sort of thing in the front yard is going to attract attention, generally of the sort one does not want. (Unless, of course, you're the Fridayland flasher, in which case you have more problems than I care to discuss.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:07 AM)
18 July 2006
Canadian burqan

It's all a matter of aesthetics, says Kevin Williamson in the Calgary Sun:

Far be it from me to tell anyone to put their clothes on, but there's a reason we have laws against public nudity.

Hygiene? Morality? Hardly.

It's because if you broke open the fleshy floodgates and gave the greenlight for everyone to disrobe whenever they pleased, you'd be exposed to every manner of rubbery, shriveled protuberances — ghastly things better left behind the closed doors of doctor's offices and dark, dark bedrooms.

Why?

Because the first people to bare all would be the same people who should, God willing, remain swathed in fabric for the rest of their lives. Minimum three layers. Preferably black.

Wait until he finds out that fifty percent of the population is below-average in appearance.

(Link contains possibly-NSFW picture; article found at Fleshbot, which is never safe for work unless you're the sysadmin and sometimes even then.)

Permalink to this item (posted at 12:23 PM)
20 July 2006
Must be a pants shortage or something

First, there was the Broken Arrow nimrod who worked on his car in the front yard wearing nothing but a thin coating of greasy sweat (and/or sweaty grease).

Now here's a pantsless dork shopping at the Shawnee Mall Sears.

As a person who avoids clothing as much as circumstances and the weather permit, I must decry this sort of stupidity, if only because it puts me in a bad light. (Actually, any light in which you can see me is a bad light, but let that pass.) It's not "striking a blow for body freedom" or anything high-flown like that; it's simply making oneself look ridiculous.

A word to the wise: if anyone really wanted to see your genitalia, you'd have an actual date.

Permalink to this item (posted at 1:41 PM)
21 July 2006
They barely missed him

The suspected Fridayland Flasher, also believed to have engaged in similar displays in the Tulsa area, was spotted in Broken Arrow yesterday, according to KWTV's morning Webcast; the B.A. cops pulled him over, he turned over his license, and then he drove off. Presumably he was dressed at the time.

Previous eyewitness reports that the perp was driving a grey or silver car were apparently accurate; "Steven Brazeal," the name on the license, was behind the wheel of a silver Chrysler Sebring.

Update, 22 July, 11:30 am: Brazeal apparently lives in the tiny town of Foyil on Route 66 east of Claremore; he is an actual doctor-type person, but the state of Tennessee has pulled his license to practice medicine there. It appears he's also been putting on a show in Texas. Tulsa County is filing charges against Brazeal, and Oklahoma County may follow.

Permalink to this item (posted at 10:22 AM)
23 August 2006
Okay, who's got the wand?

Jeff Jarvis said this in the wake of 9/11:

So you can sneak a bomb in your shoe. The only solution is to fly naked. You can't bring anything on board; it all has to be shipped separately on cargo jet.

(The old Buzz Machine archives — the ones on Blogger — don't seem to be working; I copied this from a piece of my own.)

He later added:

Now you might say to me, Jeff, don't be ridiculous. At least we can fly in our underwear. But no. If enough C4 to take down a jet could be shoved into a shoe, imagine what could fit into a padded bra. I can see the headline now: Man Arrested at Logan With Explosive Codpiece. Ouch.

No comment from Jarvis yet on this. [Not safe for work.]

Update, 1 pm: Comment from Jarvis.

Permalink to this item (posted at 8:40 AM)
29 August 2006
Out in the noonday sun?

A survey by the UK real-estate site propertyfinder.com suggests that the Brits are doffing their duds at a startling rate: nearly 20 percent report having gone outside starkers, and as many claim to have spotted their neighbors doing likewise.

Even more remarkable, 50 percent said they had no particular issues with moving in next door to someone who went about in the altogether, and a further 34 percent said they had no problem so long as they didn't have to look at anything. Eighty-four percent for whom it's not a dealbreaker! By contrast, forty to fifty percent said they'd reject a home if the neighbors were boisterous or loudly argumentative. (I suppose the worst of both worlds would be, um, nude party animals.) *

I would love to see a comparable survey done here in the colonies, though I suspect we're a lot more reserved than the Mother Country.

(Found here.)

* This is not — repeat, not — intended as a setup for "Strange Search-Engine Requests".

Permalink to this item (posted at 6:20 AM)
This Archive continues here.
The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

Click the Permalink on an individual entry to read comments and TrackBacks if any