Aversion to Nudity Impedes the War on Terrorism.
June 4, 2002 2:58 PM   Subscribe

Aversion to Nudity Impedes the War on Terrorism.
Would you "bare all" for the sake of Homeland Defense ?
posted by sheauga (17 comments total)
While normally I'm extemely "body-shy", hell I have an aversion to swimming mainly because I'm not comfortable with even "baring" my chest, I'd rip my damn clothes off in a second if it was life or death.
posted by jkaczor at 3:04 PM on June 4, 2002

If I don't get to see my co-workers naked (specifically the girls in the art department) the terrorists will have won.
posted by homunculus at 3:25 PM on June 4, 2002

This is mostly caused by the repressed society that this government has in so far enforced and attempted to protect under any circumstances. Nudity is considered sexual, and anything sexual is absolutely unacceptable to a lot of the countries. (Except in the confides of a loving, monogomous, man-woman, hetersexual, completely straight, no chance of anyone but them seeing each other marriage).

Then you've got the issue of men, who are afraid people might see them belonging to this group or this group and therefore are afraid of anyone seeing them.

And of course, women and their perpetual list of problems, from boobs to thighs to ass, either too big or too small (whichever is trendier at the current moment of the incident).

Just let everyone have a strip day, and everyone can get it out of their system.
posted by benjh at 3:34 PM on June 4, 2002

What, all decontamination isn't like Star Trek or Dr No?
posted by dhartung at 3:39 PM on June 4, 2002

Brings new meaning to "I wouldn't be caught dead in that outfit", now doesn't it?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:39 PM on June 4, 2002

I volunteered for a hazmat response drill for the Washington State Ferry system a few years ago.

We lucked out and didn't have to actually disrobe, but we went through the steps anyway. Here's the shower room and here's the put-some-clothes-back-on room.
posted by Diddly at 3:57 PM on June 4, 2002

Oops, here's the right put-some-clothes-back-on room.
posted by Diddly at 3:58 PM on June 4, 2002

"Both were false alarms."

Alrights folks, thanks for stripping and letting us spray your fine, hard bodies with water, but it looks like everything is okay.

(Hmm. Smells like a hormonal conspiracy.)
posted by jacknose at 4:22 PM on June 4, 2002

Repressed Californians can begin their reeducation at one of these fine modesty deprograming locations. (May not be safe for work unless your work is clothing-optional.)
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on June 4, 2002

The report doesn't say people won't disrobe (unless you count the obligatory quote from a nudist at the bottom). In fact in both cases it sounds like the people did disrobe. It just says people'd rather not strip. Yeah, that's a surprise. When I go the doctor's office I'd rather not strip to, but I do.

The point seems to be we've all been scratching our heads to see if we can come up with disaster plans that provide some tip of the hat to modesty. This whole story is more about titillation than terrorism (not that that isn't a refreshing change of pace).
posted by willnot at 4:39 PM on June 4, 2002

"Some people would rather be dead than strip in public."

I also wish that Siegelson's quote had been expanded upon. As willnot says there is no other support for this in the article.
posted by vacapinta at 4:50 PM on June 4, 2002

Add "public nudity" to the nightmare scenarios associated with terrorist attacks.

Sounds like someone needs a nude bomb!
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:11 PM on June 4, 2002

Me? I wouldn't care. I'm not shy.

Now, those in viewing range might object...
posted by hadashi at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2002

Er, given that Spanish(?) guy's success at getting masses of people to strip in public and lie about the beach/main avenue/etcetera while he composes his pictures, I rather doubt "rather dead than strip" is particularly true.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:25 PM on June 4, 2002

I've decided to remain buck naked for the duration as a precautionary measure. I'm doing it for America, dammit!
posted by jonmc at 6:55 PM on June 4, 2002

I would (of course) strip if it was a life or death situation, but if there if I was pretty sure everything was fine, but some overzealous HazMat people wanted my coworkers and me to get naked in front of each other "just in case", I might have second thoughts.
If false-alarms like this continue to happen, of course people are going to be reluctant to participate! D'oh!
posted by bonheur at 7:21 PM on June 4, 2002

What's so fucking difficult about being naked in front of other people? And how will you know if it's real or "just in case"?

Based on bonheur's logic, if I wanted to really fuck up an area (I don't - I'm just pointing out the obvious), I'd just call in a dozen or two false alarms over a short period of time.

Then, I would release my hazardous material(tm), and watch the fun begin!
posted by Irontom at 5:59 AM on June 6, 2002

« Older These People   |   Supplies of oil may be inexhaustible. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments