The Naked Truth

     We should require nudity.
     Get your mind out of the gutter. This is not a prurient suggestion.
     Well, maybe it is, but consider what most of the people you know must look like naked. You don’t want to see that.
     Which is why we should require nudity. It solves so many problems.
     Let’s uncover the obvious ones first.
     Airport security would be so much easier. Aside from the occasional mouth and cavity search, we’d be free again to come and go as we please.
     You tighten security and save money on security at the same time. TSA agents could relax and just watch people – some of them closely.
     Then there’s obesity.
     The mayor of New York, who recognizes a significant problem when he sees it, wanted to fight obesity by banning the sale of large drinks.
     He meant well. I don’t think he was getting campaign contributions from small cup manufacturers. But the law wouldn’t have worked.
     If you can’t buy a 16-ounce drink, what’s to stop you from buying two 8-ouncers?
     You could even bring your own 16-ounce goblet to pour the two 8-ouncers into.
     Sales of 15½-ounce cups would have skyrocketed.
     A more effective tool against obesity is required nudity.
     Do you want people to see you the way you look now?
     There would be massive weight loss. The gym industry should be lobbying for this legislation.
     Then there’s gun control.
     Try to carry a concealed weapon now. Try to carry an assault rifle. Try to carry large amounts of ammunition without being noticed.
     Gang violence would be significantly reduced. Kids would be too busy laughing at each other. And you couldn’t wear your gang colors.
     The war on drugs could be won. All neighborhood police would have to do is spot people wearing things. Those are the guys with something to hide.
     Profiling would no longer be necessary.
     Yes, I know certain cavities could still be used as drug storage areas, but how many customers are going to want to buy fresh out of those cavities?
     I know some of you are thinking this would be impractical in cold climates, but there are workarounds. Transparent clothing is an obvious solution.
     Lululemon’s chief product officer didn’t have to lose his job. Maybe he was considering just this kind of social benefit.
     I know the fashion industry would take a hit and I’m sympathetic to that. I watch Project Runway.
     But clothing could be allowed at private functions, special events, and clothing-optional areas with appropriate security.
     And, of course, in the shower.
     I know what you’re thinking: If wearing clothes is criminal, then only criminals will wear clothes.
     OK. Fair enough.
     But they’ll be easy to spot.
     Hanky-Panky?
     If something seems irrational, it may be that crazy people are involved.
     Or there may be a secret.
     I was intrigued the other day when I read about the lawsuit filed in Dallas by a female attorney who claimed that her law firm had a rule prohibiting men and women who worked there from being alone with each other.
     Apparently, licensed attorneys who have passed ethics exams can’t be trusted with a member of the opposite sex.
     The suit says the rule has been abandoned but the firm still separates the sexes (a charge the firm denies).
     But if this stuff is true, you’d think the firm is either a religious cult or unaware that babies aren’t made by handshakes. Or maybe the partners are gay and repulsed by the thought of breeder sex.
     I have another theory which I suggest for plaintiff’s counsel: there’s a deep dark secret here.
     Find out whose idea that rule was.
     Then offer to settle.

%d bloggers like this: