What is normal and what isn’t?
One of the biggest misconceptions today is that people don’t seem to understand the difference between normal and natural. Not everything that’s normal is natural.
Natural is what we find in and do with nature.
Normal is a result of the general acceptance of ‘norms’ in a group of people. Like, you guessed it, wearing clothes.
I know I’ve touched this subject several times, but I can’t stress it enough. Nor can I hope enough that clothed people will read this and start understanding the difference between normal and natural. So many things are being called natural while they are only normal. For example most people consider it natural to own a car. Seeing what the manufacturing of cars, and the pollution from the exhausts does to nature, I would dare to say that nature doesn’t agree.
Cars don’t grow on trees, so they aren’t natural.
Clothes don’t grow on trees either, so for that simple reason they fall in the normal category. This to the chagrin of many a naturist or nudist who prefers to be natural when the weather and environment don’t require that normality.
Benefits of normal
Of course there are benefits to having norms. Not going around killing everyone you don’t like is one of them, a norm that in general most people seem to adopt quite easily.
Driving on the same side of the road as anyone else in your country (after picking one of those cars from a tree) is another one that I consider a good norm. I’m sure everyone can list another of such norms that makes sense. (Not making a lasso out of two rattle snakes, for instance.)
Natural and why that’s smarter
Being clothes-free when you don’t need clothes is smart because you don’t sweat in those clothes. Sweat, trapped in fabric, causes unpleasant odours.
Being clothes-free will decrease the need for air conditioners tremendously.
Eating natural food is much healthier than stuff that comes from labs and adjacent factories. But what about allergies, I hear some of you say. Allergies seem to arise from the chemical warfare you wage on your body by eating the stuff from aforementioned labs. My rule of thumb is that if a package contains at least 2 ingredients I can’t pronounce, I don’t buy it. And what about the colouring additives to make food look nicer? I can do without that. Spots in apples? Please, if that means there was no DDT on them. Did you know that margarine in its pure state is white? It has food colouring added to it so it looks like butter.
Give me natural, please.
2 thoughts on “A naturist’s view on what’s normal (and what’s not)”
Hi Paul. As always I appreciate your thought provoking posts. Upon reflection, “normal” somewhat frightens me. To not put too fine a point on it, at one time during the last century in Germany it was considered “normal” to round up and incarcerate Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others considered undesirable. It seems that “group think” determines “normal” but who determines “group think”? The more I reflect upon it, the more apparent it becomes that being “natural” can only exist where there is the freedom to be so. I exist in my natural state (in this case sans clothing) only because I am free to do so. From a certain perspective, “normal” would seem to be antithetical to “natural” but is a world possible where “normal” and “natural” were synonymous? For such a world to be true freedom for all would be necessary. From my perspective, that is a world worth working for.
Robert, I suggest you read Paul’s books on ‘Mirror Earth’ where he explores these ideas. I really enjoyed them and (almost) would like to live in such environments.