Somehow this seems a trifle, um, unhygienic:

Using the pseudonym “Pricasso”, Tim Patch has become an up-and-coming (no pun intended) artist with a catch. “I dip it in the paint and then apply it to the canvas,” says the 60 year old creative. “…I videotape all my work because sometimes people don’t believe me.”

I wonder if he prefers latex paints.

We survived motion-picture ratings; we survived videogame ratings. Is it time for nude-recreation ratings?

In a society which has such a widespread disease of body dissatisfaction, it would seem that nudism/naturism would be an obvious part of the cure. At the same time that the worldwide interest in nude recreation is booming, both AANR and TNS have seen a decline in membership over the last decade.

Not that we’re any less curious than we used to be:

The problem with nudism/naturism is that it falls somewhere in between sex and chastity. The non-nudist, or “textile”, cannot grasp the concept of nudity without sexual behavior because the two elements have been so deeply ingrained in our minds by popular culture. Generally, with few exceptions, when someone takes off their clothes in a movie, sex is sure to follow. As a result, nudists have over-emphasized the fact that sexual behavior is not tolerated, to the point where even a hug and a kiss between two people is grounds for suspicion. First-time visitors are required to present a photo ID at the gate of nudist parks, and most are given at least a cursory background check in order to preserve the safety of all club members.

Which is particularly important if you want to bring the kids along; there’s nothing to be gained, and perhaps a lot to be lost, if what they see winds up being an outdoor stag party. Meanwhile, “couples-only” resorts are springing up, specifically for those who don’t want the kids brought along. And they tend not to be affiliated with the big (well, not that big) nudist organizations.

Perhaps it’s time for organized nudists to recognize that there are all kinds of nudists, just like there are all kinds of people. The strict definitions and guidelines laid out by AANR and TNS are fine, and I espouse them myself, but it seems to me that it’s time to recognize that clothing-optional enterprises like Caliente, Paradise Lakes and Castaways travel are forms of nudism, too. After all, Striptease and Finding Nemo are both movies, and through a ratings system people are able to make a choice about which one is appropriate for children.

The alternative?

Nudist organizations are failing to capitalize on all these new manifestations of the nude spirit within us all. There needs to be a bigger tent to bring more of these like-minded people together. A failure of imagination as well as a strict adherence to tradition will turn AANR and TNS into dinosaurs, following drive-in movies, video stores, and land-lined telephones into extinction.

I notice that I seem to write about this stuff more during the wintertime. Make of that what you will.

(Work safety of any external links in this piece is not guaranteed.)

InStyle (February) has a two-page article called “10 Ways to Look Better Naked.” The first one is “Turn on the lights,” which demanded I read further:

We know that trick: Clothes come off, lights go out. But according to L.A. interior designers Ron Woodson and Jaime Rummerfield, there’s a more exciting alternative to getting frisky in the dark. “Amber light casts skin in a warm, rosy glow,” says Woodson, who suggests placing a red-hued bulb in bedside lamps and painting your ceiling a barely there shade of peach or pink to enhance the effect.

The bulbs illustrated, you may be sure, are good old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, so you might want to grab some now while you still can. (There are colored CFL bulbs, but do you trust them to give you the right color? Most of them can barely serve up an acceptable version of white.)

When I first saw this mentioned on the cover, though, my most immediate thought was “You should date me. There’s no chance I’ll look better than you do, and I’ll be too grateful to notice any alleged imperfections.” Not that I’d actually recommend that to anyone, of course.

(Is this mere Googlebait? What do you think?)

Not a whole lot I can add to this:

Three men with no clothes on traveled in the Moscow subway early on Sunday after betting with young women, police said.

“A police detail met them at the next station, Perovo, but only managed to detain one man, as the two others got into a train and escaped,” a police spokesman said.

“The detained 20-year-old Muscovite confessed that he and his friends bet with their acquaintances, young women, that they would go on a ride in the subway naked,” the spokesman said.

What’s a bit unnerving about this is not so much the bet itself as the fact that it came about in Russia. In January.

Dr. Frisia Nutsov, please pick up the blue courtesy phone.

From craigslist in Chicagoland:

I have a free private room and a nice private bathroom for a female ages 18 – 29 only ,,,,, I am a male age 38 , who walks around the house naked at night , so this is the catch , you must be ok with seeing me naked ,, Im a great looking guy ,, my body is very muscular , in great shape !!,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Everything is free ,,, the house is newer and very nice ,,,, comes with Washer , Dryer , Dishwasher , Cable TV and Wifi ,,,, + more !! Please include pic in responce !! I will send one in return.

Subtlety is probably not this fellow’s strong suit. Then again, neither is punctuation.

The “first time,” in this context, was 1964, when Rudi Gernreich introduced something called the “monokini,” which, you might infer from the name, was approximately half of a bikini. (“Bikini,” Steve Rushin once explained in a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, was a composite of “bi,” meaning “two,” and “kini,” meaning “square inches of Lycra.”)

Gernreich, it appears, was about four and a half decades before his time, because Victoria’s Secret, not a name you’d normally associate with over-the-top fashion, has come up with something much the same, though they’re calling it simply a “topless bikini”.

VS does in fact provide a bandeau top for this, um, apparatus, though it’s detachable.

If your next question is “Couldn’t you have put up a picture of Gernreich’s swimsuit being worn by an actual person?” the answer is “Yes, but I’d already assembled this graphic.” I will, however, refer you to Jeff Weinstein, who has a shot of Peggy Moffitt wearing the original monokini in a color I’d call None More Black.

I need hardly point out that neither of these garments, despite their billing, is likely to be particularly good for actually swimming.

Little Miss Attila reminds us:

[N]o matter what Big Dermatology tells you, everyone looks better with a tan. Especially Caucasians.

Which is why I’ll never run for public office. Too pale.

This looks like a really good time not to mention the youngish woman of African-American extraction I tried to sell on the idea of clothing-optional vacations: “I’m brown enough,” she said.

And besides, they might revive the idea of the Tanning Tax.

Addendum: No, I don’t actually have melanoma. So far as I know.

Australian beauty queen (and 2004 Miss Universe) Jennifer Hawkins doffs her duds for the Oz version of Marie Claire, and there’s controversy afoot:

She is working with the Butterfly Foundation to promote a positive body image. However, the cover isn’t receiving too much praise. Some deem her “brave” for going un-airbrushed and nude while others are pointing out the obvious… Jennifer is 26 and is a lingerie model and it’s hardly “brave” for someone with a near perfect body to go un-airbrushed.

Others say it promotes the fight against obesity. Overall, the main goal of the Butterfly Foundation is healthy body images while fighting eating disorders. The argument is that a lingerie model’s body is not an average representative of a normal woman’s body.

One could argue that the “average representative” isn’t likely to appear on the cover of Marie Claire, Photoshopped or otherwise, but I tend to align with the critics on this one: women fighting body-image issues are not likely to find comfort in the example of a former Miss Universe, unless at some point she ballooned up to [fill in some unthinkable number] pounds or suffered some rare skin disease.

That said, she is sorta cute, and if she strikes a blow against the damn-near-universal practice of retouching everything to the point of unreality, she’ll have performed a genuine public service.

When I went househunting back in 2003, I had a few specific criteria in mind:

I don’t, of course, need 1500 square feet. My current Meager Hovel is about two-thirds that size, and it’s all I can do to keep up with the cleaning, though I can always blame it on work hours, which are either long or longer. What I really want is a ceiling that vibrates only when the Air Force passes overhead, and a place to park my car that’s defined by something more than a couple of yellow lines. And apparently I’m willing to pay dearly for these amenities.

It would not have occurred to me to ask The Expert, several years my senior and seemingly more than a couple of clicks toward the Prim side of the continuum, to limit the search to places which afford enough privacy for me to go about without bothering to get dressed.

Which is not to say that such a thing has never been done before:

I asked my Realtor about this issue, explaining what it was all about. Here is her response:

“This is not as strange as you think! If they let me know a little more about what they are looking for — like bedrooms, price, etc — I don’t really care what they garden in — I can send them listings and when they find one they might want to see, I would get as much info as I could with maps and such they could peruse before they committed to a showing. Could even get a map so they see exactly where the neighbors are in relation to the property. You might be surprised to know all the strange requests I have had. The requests did not make anyone less special as individuls. You gotta like them as they are or you miss a lot of life!

“They don’t need to know anything about what I know of their lifestyles if they would feel uncomfortable with that, however, it helps to know as much as you can about a client so you can help them find what they are looking for. And if they would rather not work with me, just let them know if they explain they want a great deal of privacy to a realtor, that would be sufficient, but tell them to ask for maps and a lot of info before they go on showings.”

There have been, of course, and probably still are, agents who specialized in this sort of thing.

Erick Williamson, last seen standing in his house wearing nothing but a smile, is no longer smiling, having been convicted of indecent exposure, a conviction he will appeal.

Williamson drew 180 days, suspended, and no fine from District Judge Ian O’Flaherty, who compared him to John Dillinger, apparently not for Dillinger’s alleged, um, shootin’ iron.

(Via the presumably-dressed Ann Althouse.)

The American Association for Nude Recreation has posed a question to its membership:

Padma Lakshmi is just the latest in a long line of celebrities who reveal in interviews that they enjoy being naked, have gone skinny-dipping or have tried some kind of au naturel experience such as nude gardening. Do you think they help further the cause of nude recreation or not?

Hard to say, really. I don’t know anybody who, having dismissed the idea of trying it out, changed her mind after being told that [fill in name of celebrity] does it, so it’s not a direct benefit to The Cause. Then again, if she did change her mind, why would she tell me?

That said, Lakshmi, six months pregnant, posed in pretty near nothing — there’s a sandal strap visible, anyway — for Page Six magazine earlier this month. And she’s comfortable with pretty near nothing, as both that cover and an earlier photo indicate. Whether the individual reader will be inspired to go and do likewise, I have no idea. On the other hand, it makes for an obvious Rule 5 ploy.

Last month, California’s Department of Parks and Recreation warned that they would crack down, so to speak, on nude use of San Onofre State Beach in Orange County, which prompted the Naturist Education Foundation to commission a poll. If the numbers are accurate, Californians weren’t all that upset about this sort of thing: 79 percent agreed “that people should be able to enjoy nude sunbathing on a beach or other location that is designated for that purpose.”

This, of course, requires another question: should locations actually be so designated? Seventy percent said they should.

I suppose my real question here is whether Californians, the majority of whom live within a reasonable distance of some sort of beach, are unusually tolerant of this sort of thing, or it’s simply that no one ever asks this of, say, Iowans.

Meanwhile, naturist activist Allen Baylis (previously mentioned here) points out:

“I think this poll mainly shows that the Parks Department should go ahead and designate clothing-optional beaches in California because that’s what the people of the state want. The people want to have safe, legal, clothing-optional beaches.”

Or at least, they’re not interested in seeing people prosecuted for doing without swimsuits, since, according to the poll, 40 percent of them have gone at least as far as going skinny-dipping.

(Seen here.)

I can feel a venti coming on:

We have decided to open our own business. A coffee shop. With strippers. For now we’re calling it “Java ‘N Jugs.”

But we’re not going to be like those Seattle bikini-clad coffee-slingers. Our baristas (which will be us to start) will be dressed like Dita Von Teese: classic red lipstick, pin curls, silk stockings, 1930s styling. Put a tip in the tin and we take a little off. Eventually we’re in our knickers, a-makin’ coffee. We’re strip-tistas! But classy ones. And also ones that don’t get naked because I’m pretty sure that being naked behind the counter would be a violation of health codes.

Besides, if they got to the point of being topless, some nimrod would probably burn down the place.

Whenever possible, I try to follow up on questions posed on this site. From nine years ago:

[A] non-landed (by which is meant they don’t own their own facilities) naturist group (this should require no explanation) sends word that they have added to their scheduled offerings clothing-optional bowling. What I want to know is: do they still rent shoes?

This month’s AANR Bulletin has a photo of members of Native Woods Naturists Park, taken at a bowling alley. And every last one of them is wearing shoes, though clearly some of them aren’t rented, since they don’t match the others.

And yes, it is possible to notice shoes, even socks, on a person who is wearing nothing else.

Conflicting stories have arisen in the Erick Williamson case, though the basic facts of the incident seem clear: the guy was having a cuppa joe in his birthday suit, and someone saw him and raised holy hell.

Now to me, this is risky behavior: what if he sloshes the stuff around? Burn City.

Michele Catalano wrote the story up for PJM:

Whether it’s something simple like smoking during dinner (outlawed in most public places) or something less innocent involving nudity and preferably our partner or spouse, we feel safe and protected in our house — or at least we should, presuming the activity isn’t criminal.

But nosy people and prudish neighbors think that if they wouldn’t do it, you shouldn’t be doing it either. Maybe most of us close the drapes if we’re walking around in just our skin, but we don’t have to — no such law exists. I’m sure it did not cross Williamson’s mind, as he walked into the kitchen and reached for the coffee pot, that a woman would be walking her kid across his lawn and looking in his window.

I wouldn’t be too sure that “no such law exists”: laws vary, often wildly, from one jurisdiction to the next. Lisa Paul, who often comments here, has noted:

You do have fewer rights to privacy in your own home than you may think. If his window is visible from a well travelled walkway or thoroughfare and a photographer were to stand on public land and take his picture nude at the coffee pot, that would probably be legal. Now disseminating that picture probably wouldn’t be.

As is often the case these days, I’m fairly well torn here. Certainly I defend anyone’s right to be nude on his own property; on the other hand, one should not annoy the neighbors unnecessarily. Then again, it’s difficult to see into my house from the street, regardless of the position of the drapes and the blinds, because of topography and foliage: you have to be at exactly the right angle, and if you blink you’ll miss it.

And Eric Scheie sees the sexism inherent in the system:

[I]f I were to cut through someone’s yard … and see a guy naked inside, I’d feel a little ashamed of myself for invading his privacy. It would never, ever, in my wildest dreams occur to me to call the cops, and I would expect to be laughed (or worse) at if I did. If I saw a naked woman, I’d run, for I would expect her to call the cops. And if I saw a naked adolescent girl, I’d run even faster, lest I be accused by her mother of stalking a child.

While none of this is fair, it’s the way the world works.

In the best of all possible worlds, or even a few steps down from there, this would all be infinitely yawn-worthy: “Oh, he doesn’t have any clothes on. Big deal.” But in this Era of Umbrage, nothing is ever shrugged off by anyone for any reason.

A clothing-optional campsite in Montenegro is called Club Full Monte.

Why can’t I ever think up things like that?

I dunno. I want to sympathize, but there’s still an undercurrent of “What were you thinking?” to this story:

A York, SC woman was arrested Tuesday for cutting her lawn topless, according to an incident report from the York County Sheriff’s Office.

Angela Jonas, 50, is charged with indecent exposure after a neighbor called and complained the woman was mowing her yard [address redacted] naked from the waist up. The neighbor said Jonas has done this on several occasions.

Isn’t this, like, discriminatory? They wouldn’t bust (sorry) a guy for this, even if he had substantial moobage.

Then again, she may have damaged her own case:

When deputies arrived to investigate, they found Jonas walking nearby. According to the report, Jonas admitted she liked to cut the grass nude and was walking on the street topless.

(Tweeted in my general direction by Jeff Quinton.)

There are those who will argue that women are somehow empowered by posing in one room while (most of) their clothing is in another. Donna will argue the contrary, thank you very much:

I walked around the vendors’ tables and came upon LOLA: Ladies of Liberty Alliance. They were selling a calendar featuring their prettiest members in various states of undress. WHY? WHY? “It’s empowering!” No. Diesel is empowering, this is just stupid. I am sorry. I support your right to do this but I have to question your sanity. Pose nearly nude and sell calendars — fine. Do it. I don’t care. But do you have to do it in the name of Liberty? Do you have to do it here? This is a political movement. Can’t we rise above this crazy urge to shake our boobies at all the unkempt Libertarian men?

Libertarian men, unkempt as they may be, aren’t the ones that need persuading.

Far be it from me to discourage any woman of any political persuasion from doffing her duds, but it’s always seemed to me that doing so for specifically political purposes has a tendency to trivialize whatever cause is being promoted. (And I’ve said so before.) Then again, were there a burgeoning small-l libertarian naturist movement, this might be just the ticket, since at least it’s on topic.

I may buy the calendar anyway, just, um, because.

The Academic Naturist comes up with lots of ideas that fall under the heading of Guerrilla Naturism, but this is the one that jolted me farthest out of my traditional complacency:

Restrictive covenants. They may not be useful often, but over time they could have an impact. If every naturist puts a restrictive covenant on their property that states that the owner must be OK with neighborhood nudity, we’d eventually weave together legal clothing-optional neighborhoods. At one parcel of land that I looked at, the covenant said I couldn’t build a pig farm or have a junkyard. I believe neighbors are able to place restrictive covenants on land if they all agree on the issue, which I think happened in this case.

“Over time,” yeah. Lots of time. Half the houses on this block have been sold since I’ve been here — which means, of course, that half of them haven’t. More to the point, I’ve seen neighborhood meetings get, um, somewhat amplified over issues less divisive than this. And there’s still the question of whether the existence of the covenants would pass legal muster with the city, which still has an ordinance about such things.

If this is going to work at all, I suspect, it will have to be in an isolated area, probably gated, built from the ground up as a clothing-optional neighborhood and advertised (discreetly) as such. Still, there are worse ways to spend your life.

Glen Echo, a naturist park about an hour’s drive from Toronto, has been sold and will be closed; a number of seasonal residents have been informed that they have to be out of the Hundred-Acre Wood by the end of September.

There is no shortage of clubs in Ontario, but Glen Echo was the first, dating back to the middle 1950s.

This line caught my attention:

In its mid-1990s heyday, as many as 350 families were members. But interest in the movement has sagged across the world in recent years.

As its major practitioners — people about my age — have sagged, I suppose. Still, nude cruises continue to sell out: maybe the emphasis is shifting as the old guard fades away and younger, presumably hipper souls take command of the $400 million industry.

Her Majesty’s Government is apparently about to uncover exactly that:

The Government Equalities Office, which is overseen by Labour’s deputy leader [Harriet Harman], is promoting claims that devotees of skinny dipping and nudist campsites suffer prejudice equivalent to that experienced by gays, ethnic minorities and the elderly.

A submission written by British Naturism has been included in a review into discrimination. “Naturists encounter prejudice in employment,” it reads.

Especially, I suspect, if they practice it during the screening interview.

British Naturism has 16,000 members but claims there could be 1.2m naturists in the country, with many choosing to cover up their hobby.

It is urging the government and other authorities to make “affirmative statements” in favour of naturism and combat the financial penalties endured by those who pursue clothes-free leisure pursuits. Entry to naturist nights at council swimming pools is often twice as expensive as admission on other nights.

I look at this, and my first thought is “They have naturist nights at council swimming pools?”

Here’s the BN statement (pdf). The Political Naturist (in the midwestern US) comments:

In the United States, people who oppose public lands to be set aside for nude sunbathing often make the comment that the beaches should be for “everybody”, and that somehow the presence of nude people suddenly makes a beach restricted. In fact, this argument is prejudicial, and a society which denies equal access to tax-paying citizens who merely wish to enjoy nature without the burden of clothing is guilty of discrimination.

Given our tendency to entangle ourselves in legal less-than-niceties, however, if this particular principle were in fact embraced nationwide, someone would inevitably demand that there be equal access to beaches regardless of location, which would require, in some places, actual tectonic shift. Maybe we can put Al Gore to work on moving the continents around. He won’t even have to get dressed if it’s warm enough.

But maybe the Brits are just more serious about getting their kit off. BN reports 130 clubs in a land of sixty million; stateside, AANR has about 270 member clubs serving 300 million. One state — Arkansas — actually forbids the very mention of the concept, which must have been a source of amusement and/or annoyance to pants-off guys like Bill Clinton. If there’s to be an American movement similar to the one BN is trying to pull off, it’s got to find its way to Little Rock.

Main page (after login) logo at Skinbook this week:

It’s not exactly belt and suspenders, but hey…

I mentioned last night that I had a certain amount of sympathy for ESPN personality Erin Andrews, inasmuch as I am “a person who has been known to occasionally [1] stay in hotels and [2] not get dressed.”

This possibility evidently horrified Stacy McCain, who blurbed the item as follows:

Well, I did say I was “not especially attractive,” and I stand by that statement — though not too close if I can help it.

This is one of the graphics at the login page of Skinbook:

While I have no problem whatever with the sentiment being expressed, I have to wonder: when exactly did “perv” become a verb?

Evidently they were told this would improve office morale:

David Taylor, a business psychologist, told workers at design and marketing onebestway, in Newcastle upon Tyne, that a Naked Friday idea would boost their team spirit.

He was called in to help the firm after six staff members were forced into taking redundancies at the start of the credit crunch.

Mr Taylor told them that, by stripping off their clothes, staff could also strip away inhibitions and talk to each other more openly and honestly.

He said: “Inviting an organisation to go naked is the most extreme technique I’ve used. It may seem weird but it works. It’s the ultimate expression of trust in yourself and each other.”

This implies that there exists at some base level a degree of trust which needs just a little help to blossom, a premise which is difficult to defend in some of our more dysfunctional organizations, where being stabbed in the back is unusual only because it’s not actually in the front.

Besides, I suspect ulterior motives:

The experiment in April was filmed for a one-off TV show, Naked Office, to be screened on July 9 on cable channel Virgin 1.

If you’re going to try this at your workplace, here’s a hint: Towels. On the chairs. Especially the leather chairs, if you have any.

(Via Fark.)

I admit up front that once upon a time, I did hop onto a bicycle wearing nothing but a smile. (No, no helmet. Stop that.)

I would like to think that during that brief and exceedingly-uncomfortable period, I did not make this much of a spectacle of myself. [Possibly not safe for anyone, anytime, anywhere.]

Mike was sufficiently amused by the term “birthday suit” to go hunting down its origins, but he is not entirely persuaded by what he found:

I stumbled upon a page from Dictionary.com. The site explains that “in 18th-century Britain this term originally referred to the clothes one wore on the king’s birthday. Later it was jocularly transferred to bare skin, alluding to the condition of a newborn baby.” Jackpot. Well, kind of. I still had no idea why an expression that once referred to clothes worn to impress a royal became a synonym for nudity.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the Emperor’s new clothes.

I believe the limits of my empathy have been tested by this case:

A nudist couple living in north Boulder is complaining about discrimination after being asked by their landlord to “dress appropriately” when outside of their unit.

Neighbors complained to police last weekend after they saw Catharine Pierce, 51, and Robert Pierce, 58, gardening outside their Cherry Avenue rental home nearly naked. Catharine Pierce was wearing pasties, and both wore thongs.

Under the law, this is technically enough to avoid an indecent-exposure rap, but it wasn’t enough to avoid a letter from the landlord:

[O]n Wednesday, the Pierces received a letter form Annie Mount at Boulder Housing Partners, their landlord, warning that the behavior was a “nuisance” to the community and needed to be changed.

A clause in the Pierces’ lease prohibits “nuisance” behavior, and violating the lease agreement can be grounds for eviction.

And while I’d tend to side with the Pierces, given my own yard-work tendencies — in the back yard, anyway — this minor detail keeps getting in the way: Boulder Housing Partners is a public-housing operation, its members appointed by the Mayor, which provides, in this specific instance, a rent house at a below-market rate.

In the best of all possible worlds, nobody would even bat an eye at a fiftysomething couple dressed in about three and a half square inches of fabric. Absent some agreement among Boulder taxpayers that this sort of thing is okay in the housing they own, though, my own glance remains stubbornly askance.

AANR reports on a fall TV debut [link safe for work, rest of site perhaps less so]:

[O]ne ABC show features a character billed as a “semi-nudist.” The show, The Middle, is produced by Warner Brothers and stars Everybody Loves Raymond star Patricia Heaton. The plot centers around a Midwestern family whose parents try to manage life with three children — a teenage son (the semi-nudist), a teenage daughter and a seven-year-old son. No word yet if the show will portray an accurate view of nudism, but it’s progress that a nudist will be featured in a mainstream, prime time show.

Of course, the real disappointment here is that Heaton will be keeping her clothes on.

But I suspect the really scary aspect of that kid is not so much that he tends to go around in the (semi)buff, but the fact that he’s named Axl — and if this writeup is to be believed, there’s a reason for it. And if such things encroach further on the FCC’s threshold of apoplexy, so much the better.

I’ve eaten more than a few meals while wearing approximately nothing, which I consider no big deal — well, maybe if the soup is really, really hot — but it’s never occurred to me to do so outside the home, even though some people do so on a semi-regular basis. Nor could I see this sort of thing as a growth industry.

So maybe I’m lacking the vision thing, because apparently it’s becoming trendier: I knew about nude yoga, but now there is nude BBQ, even nude stand-up comedy. And a British newspaper claims that “according to a survey of 2,500 adults, more than a quarter of us eat breakfast naked.”

I still think hot soup is potentially worse than cold cereal, but I’m not exactly inclined to test this for myself.

(Seen here.)