A remarkable paradox exists within Caucasian societies. That is, their views on nudity. The us (and, to a lesser extent, the UK) is extremely uncomfortable with nudity in any form. In this country, it's not surprising, as we associate nudity with sex. Anything sexual, especially anything sensual, such as nudity or touching, is taboo. In fact, we are far more comfortable with violence, even graphic murder.

The paradox becomes most apparent in Europe, where White communities in places like Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, embrace nudism. Ironically, the colder the climate, the stronger the desire to walk around naked outside. The US and Canada are both predominately White nations, yet Canada is more open to nudity. The UK and it's northern European neighbors are predominately White in population, yet Britain remains outraged with the openness of it's Sweetish allies. When one looks at the roots of naturism (in Germany) and the paranoia against it, the "issue" of nudity becomes a primarily White issue. After all, Whites tend to be activists. So, what accounts for the dilemma?

The colder the climate, the harsher the effects on pigmented skin. White skin naturally protects against frostbite. So, where it is cold, you will find Caucasian societies. Yet, what does the cold environment do to this group of people? Well, let's take the case of Whites in hotter climates. Studies have shown that prolonged sun exposure raises testosterone. And, this increase is not limited to one generation. Ages of living in a hot climate gave Africans naturally high testosterone. Likewise, generations of Europeans living in cold climates led to lower testosterone. This naturally led to a higher estrogen to testosterone ratio in Whites. And, as we have seen, this leads to what the US and UK consider "perversity". What separates a single race's views on nudity is the variation of climate. Still, why create a taboo?

It's no secret how uptight we are in the US about nudity and how we obsess over it. You see, by making nudity forbidden, we gain more excitement out of it. In other parts of the world, nudity is straightforward. Here, it's rather like a gift, which we wrap up to add excitement to the process of unwrapping it (ie, undressing). Many companies, such as Playboy, would go out of business without the taboo. Although pictures of naked people playing in the sand are anything but sexual, our repressed society would find them extremely arousing. Where we to constantly see nudity, it would no longer excite us. Nudity, in and of itself, is not sexual, but we fight to maintain it's association to sex.

Now, we can't talk about nudity without talking about child nudity. After all, that is the key separation between the two sides of the paradoxical moral upset. In countries which are, to varying degrees, more relaxed about nudity, child nudity is more accepted than adult nudity (as it's less offensive). Yet, we find it to be just the opposite on this side of the paranoia fence. You see, in those colder climates, where nudity is more accepted, the overall estrogen to testosterone ratio is higher. This racial hormonal setup becomes reminiscent of a gender hormonal setup. That is to say that they have more of a female mindset. And, as we know, most women are emotionally attracted to prepubescent children. Such a reverence of youth often follows a revulsion of old, flabby skin. Naked children are seen as being in their element. Yet, what happens back on the other side, in the US and UK?

Since everything from hormones to hysteria comes in degrees, it's easy to see that even American Whites share much in common with our more effeminate White counterparts overseas. Although the US and UK have slightly different hormonal balances than our moral rivals, we still maintain an emotional attraction to children. While our higher testosterone and, in turn, higher sex drive, allows Americans to be attracted primarily to post pubescent teenagers, we still find unclothed children stimulating. The problem is that our more sexual society leads to sexualizing of all our attractions. Thus, with our attraction to children holding an emotional tug as well, it remains stronger. Therefor, we are more uncomfortable with child nudity in our over-sexed culture.

You can be arrested for possessing a gun, beer, drugs, et. The idea is that you possess with intent to use. You can also be arrested for possessing images. Yet, the latter becomes a "thought crime" (see Precrime: Preventing Crime), as images are used in the mind. A man was arrested in the UK recently for possessing pictures of fully clothed, partially clothed, and naked children. The pictures were taken on beaches without the playful children even being aware of the camera, so one can not claim exploitation (as is a common claim). This paranoia can only exist in nations which sexualize their emotional attraction to children. you see, when some concerned White mother yells her outrage over an add for children's clothing as erotic, doesn't one have to wonder how she knows such an image is erotic? When someone calls a simple picture of a naked child "suggestive" or "pornographic", they are expressing their arousal by it. Those not aroused by it won't even consider the idea until someone else points it out to them. To say something is sexual is to say that you find it sexual (or are just repeating someone else's view), which actually tells you more about yourself than it does about that something. A simple look on a child's face may make someone overcome with emotions, but do nothing for someone else. It's all relative. The problem arises when an entire society condemns nudity. By wrapping it up and forbidding it, we are making it appealing. In other words, we are creating the means by which our own taboo and laws are broken.

While the "family films" of many other countries feature child nudity, our "family films" (such as those pumped out by Disney) create a sheltered world where everything is how it should be, not how it really is. We condition our children early on to sexualize nudity and to be shocked and excited by it. As Whites overall still have a higher estrogen to testosterone ratio than other races, we all hold the same feminine mindset. Women find touching just as bad (or good) as sex because that is how women get their sexual gratification. Although it's a vulgar way to put it, because they lack a male part, women can't think "push it". For them, sensuality is the ultimate arousal. And, just like these women, the White race is attracted to children,. The paradox lies in the sexualization of nudity due to a higher sex drive and taboos. The solution lies in, as always, acceptance of both ourselves and of our counterparts who practice nudism. After all, we all enter this world naked and our hypocritical culture doesn't consider that evil. God gave Adam and Eve furs (a sacrifice) to cover their nakedness (sins) after the Fall. So, if we perceive children as innocent, why do we hasten to cover them? The answer lies within our desires. The Bible indicates that nudity is not evil; we are. What we need is God to cover our sins, not clothes to hide the shame we feel. After all, God didn't make our clothes. We did. God made our bodies, and He made them naked.