Forum: Story Ideas

Dominions Son: Yes this is a reply to your post, no it's not aimed at you personally. :)

An adult can self register or a wife can be registered with or without her consent by her husband. Registration of an adult is permanent, no way to unregister.

For those registered in the program, it becomes a criminal offense to be caught in public wearing any kind of clothing other than footwear with a few exceptions, and in general footwear is limited to sandals / high heels (for women).

Ignoring the intrinsic misogyny...

If you are going to make it a criminal offence, whilst maintaining at least a sliver of realism, you need to re-think the exceptions. A little thought should reveal the many occupations, hobbies, modes of travel etc that require clothing unless the person is an idiot. From motorcycle rider, (yes us girls can ride 'proper' bikes) to the girl flipping burgers for a living, try that shit naked and you are soon going to have more scars than a flagellating monk.

In cold climates an long overcoat and warm boots are allowed.

Wow. So thoughtful..!

Does anyone actually think it practical to wear only "a long overcoat and warm boots" regardless of how cold and or wet it is..? Seriously, either you specify exactly where these people live geographically, or you just trashed any hope of believability.

As an aside, making it a criminal offence means that police are going to be stop-checking every clothed person to ensure they are not supposed to be nude, how long before that action alone pisses off every clothed person and every police officer..? Not to mention the "profiling is wrong" thing, picking on clothed people IS profiling...

Actually a woman police officer would of course be exempt, 'protective clothing' etc.. Firefighter, paramedic, etc the list goes on.

Anyone who thinks that wearing a hard hat and steel toed boots is 'enough' protection... REALY needs a reality check.

Obviously nobody (especially me) cares about believability if all you are writing is something for others to wank over. But if you are shooting (irresistible pun) for something more believable then please at least keep it to a level where maintaining suspension of disbelief is possible.

Ignoring the intrinsic misogyny...

Which isn't as much as you probably imagine. From where I got this both men and women can register. the only real bit of misogyny in the original idea is that husbands can register wives but wives can't register husbands. That could be changed if you wanted to implement it.

If you are going to make it a criminal offence, whilst maintaining at least a sliver of realism, you need to re-think the exceptions.

Those were examples, (1 and 2 from the original source) not intended to be an exhaustive list.

A little thought should reveal the many occupations, hobbies, modes of travel etc that require clothing unless the person is an idiot.

again the example of safety gear not meant to be exhaustive.

to the girl flipping burgers for a living

A full length apron (neck to ankle) would generally be sufficient for this. Food service aprons are a bit heaver the what most people have an home, and normal clothing (fast food workers don't generally get any thing special beyond aprons) isn't going to offer significant protection against direct contact with cooking surfaces or grease spatter burns.

Does anyone actually think it practical to wear only "a long overcoat and warm boots" regardless of how cold and or wet it is..?

The whole program would be impractical above the arctic circle. Outside of that, as long as you aren't spending a lot of time outdoors, it's not quite as bad as you suggest. I've done cold weather camping, and made runs to the outhouse in just a winter coat, underpants and boots. It's not exactly fun, but until you are into temps low enough for frost bite in under 15 minutes (sub zero Fahrenheit) it is doable.

As an aside, making it a criminal offence means that police are going to be stop-checking every clothed person to ensure they are not supposed to be nude

Be a bit more creative. The police will have a list of registrants, with photos. In a small town, that could be enough by itself. Add a tattoo or other mark where not easily concealed and/or an subcutaneous RFID chip and they don't necessarily need to stop everyone.

It also doesn't necessarily need to be that actively enforced. They could wait for someone to report someone dressed who shouldn't be.

A full length apron (neck to ankle) would generally be sufficient for this.

As protection from hot fat, yes, but you try wearing just an apron in a restaurant kitchen when the health inspector calls...

It's not exactly fun, but until you are into temps low enough for frost bite in under 15 minutes (sub zero Fahrenheit) it is doable.

Except in the scenario given, they are living naked, not just making a quick dash to the toilet. So "not exactly fun" soon becomes frostbite or worse.

The police will have a list of registrants, with photos. In a small town, that could be enough by itself.

And in a larger town, city, LA/NYC etc...?? And of course nobody is going to abuse the situation, right...?

Add a tattoo or other mark where not easily concealed and/or an subcutaneous RFID chip

So now it's not enough to have people naked, you want enforced tattoos, brands, chips etc as well...

the only real bit of misogyny in the original idea is that husbands can register wives but wives can't register husbands

Sure...

ps

If your idea extends to (ex and current) politicians... ok so I might just get on board. Not that I want to SEE Hilary et all naked, but the idea of Bill selling her out is appealing... Obviously Melania is screwed.

Except in the scenario given, they are living naked

True, but they aren't living outdoors 24/7. Unless you are talking about Arctic/Antarctic levels of cold, a 10-15 minutes outdoors at a time would not be half as dangerous as you seem to think.

True, but they aren't living outdoors 24/7. Unless you are talking about Arctic/Antarctic levels of cold, a 10-15 minutes outdoors at a time would not be half as dangerous as you seem to think.

No need to go to Arctic levels to see the issues. Are you saying that realistically nobody spends more that 10-15 minutes outdoors.? Waiting to catch a bus, walking to shops, waiting for child outside school, simple exercising, gardening, and that is without ANY work scenario. Or do you only go where you can drive door-to-door.?

Being constantly naked outside in even cool temperatures, add rain etc, NOT realistic.

Waiting to catch a bus, walking to shops, waiting for child outside school, simple exercising, gardening, and that is without ANY work scenario. Or do you only go where you can drive door-to-door.?

In some of the more extended settings, "permanent nudity" alternately only requires the genitals (and mammary glands) to be exposed. You can cover up the rest. Or will allow up to a certain % of the body to be covered (so long as "the naughty bits" can be seen) So even without a specific carve-out for wearing cold-weather gear, it is conceivable that a "permanude compliant" line of clothing with things like an embedded battery power heater-vest would be made available. (There are heated jackets and coats available in reality these days)

Waiting to catch the bus would be the most hazardous of the scenarios you listed, as their physical activity may be low to non-existent at that point. So there is no additional "core heat" being generated.

If they're walking to a shop, they're exerting themselves, and unless you're into near-freezing temps or sub-freezing wind-chills you'd be amazed at resilient an acclimatized person can be in cold weather, even while nude. This is a case where reality can be far stranger than you believe it to be.

With the advent of perma-nudes being common, "waiting for child outside of school" would likely translate to "waiting inside the school" or at "a designated warming shelter" so you can wait until you are able to walk your child back home. Bus stops with warming shelters are a thing as well in the present day.

As to gardening? Seriously? How many people do you know that perform gardening tasks when it is below freezing outside?

Being constantly naked outside in even cool temperatures, add rain etc, NOT realistic.

You'd be surprised if your body has been given a chance to adapt to that situation, at least if the naturists are to be believed. Obviously there is a lower limit, but it's probably (counter-intuitively) lower for a nudist in many cases than it is somebody in a T-shirt and Levis for example. As the nudist doesn't have to deal with cold clammy clothing wicking their bodyheat away.

You'd be surprised if your body has been given a chance to adapt to that situation, at least if the naturists are to be believed.

No, I really wouldn't. I have spent time naked in Europe (various countries) more than often enough to know whereof I speak. Yes, skiing naked is fun, but not all morning or afternoon, certainly not all day regardless of conditions, same applies to rain, wind etc, it does not have to drop close to freezing to become uncomfortable then unhealthy. As for wearing heated clothing whilst leaving 'the naughty bits' (why can't you just say tits and pussy?) exposed is just plain laughable given the scenario of constant nudity.

ps

Try suggesting the use of chap-stick on labia and see how fast you get slapped...

As for wearing heated clothing whilst leaving 'the naughty bits' (why can't you just say tits and pussy?) exposed is just plain laughable given the scenario of constant nudity.

Because men don't have pussies, and most men also don't have much in the way of tits.

Because men don't have pussies, and most men also don't have much in the way of tits.

So, cock and balls then... Not that they'd be all that visible in the cold. Hmm does the bodies natural attempt to protect by retracting them into the body break the rules of 'covering up' ??

"One urologist says you can expect your penis to shrivel by about 50 percent in length and 20 to 30 percent in girth when you're exposed to any air temperature below 60 degrees."

60 Degrees isn't exactly Arctic...

So, cock and balls then... Not that they'd be all that visible in the cold. Hmm does the bodies natural attempt to protect by retracting them into the body break the rules of 'covering up' ??

Lol, indeed. I have done some ice hole swimming, and even in what we call summer here the water in the stream I skinny dip (I used to claim I don't own any swimming trunks until I had gifted several, lol, all in good fun of course) aren't much warmer than that at times, and I can attest that balls do crawl back inside, for rather uncomfortable sensations.

What's even worse in this context between sexes, men bits actually prefer to stay at lower temperature than the rest of the body, while women bits... I have heard cold to be deemed real unhealthy.

Because men don't have pussies, and most men also don't have much in the way of tits.

So, cock and balls then... Not that they'd be all that visible in the cold. Hmm does the bodies natural attempt to protect by retracting them into the body break the rules of 'covering up' ??

At that point, saying "naughty bits" becomes a lot easier to type out than "have their cock and balls or pussies and tits out for all to see" which is why I went for naughty bits.

At that point, saying "naughty bits" becomes a lot easier to type out than "have their cock and balls or pussies and tits out for all to see" which is why I went for naughty bits.

Easier, yes, but there are alternatives that lack the implication that the sex organs are somehow 'naughty'. It's the hypocrisy that is objectionable, not the use of a collective to describe the parts of both sexes.

"naughty bits"

In this context (preferring naked females) use "not he bits".

And of course nobody is going to abuse the situation, right...?

The point is not the specific means, but that there are means of enforcement that don't involve the police hassling everyone all the time.

Does anyone actually think it practical to wear only "a long overcoat and warm boots" regardless of how cold and or wet it is..? Seriously, either you specify exactly where these people live geographically, or you just trashed any hope of believability.

Very few stories play in that realm, but some that have allow up to and including the wearing of "ski suits" while outside. But the moment they are indoors, the suit has to come off. So they can wear a Coat/Pant combo "if conditions warrant" the wearing of protective clothing(and that would be codified).

As an aside, making it a criminal offence means that police are going to be stop-checking every clothed person to ensure they are not supposed to be nude, how long before that action alone pisses off every clothed person and every police officer..? Not to mention the "profiling is wrong" thing, picking on clothed people IS profiling...

Typically enforcement of the permanent nudity status of the permanudes is relying on people reporting on a permanude wearing clothes. Most enforcement action is actually directed at the "Textile" running around naked. (With the typical punishment being placed on a Judicially assigned permanent nudity term)

Use of RFID or specialize bracelets for the arm/ankle or even a collar are also common enough.

Most enforcement action is actually directed at the "Textile" running around naked. (With the typical punishment being placed on a Judicially assigned permanent nudity term)

Ohh... So you envisage a large number of people who should be clothed but in fact choose to go naked and are prosecuted for doing so... Let me guess, the ones deemed less than beautiful/fuckable... right..?

If not, then why does anyone care if someone chooses to go naked..?

Ohh... So you envisage a large number of people who should be clothed but in fact choose to go naked and are prosecuted for doing so... Let me guess, the ones deemed less than beautiful/fuckable... right..?

If not, then why does anyone care if someone chooses to go naked..?

It's mostly there for increasingly sharp contrast, nudity is illegal unless mandatory. Sure, neither is actually enforceable, but those scenarios usually assume unbelievably law abiding public, even when they really hate obviously absurd laws. Probably it seems marginally more believable in America, those folks are indeed weird at times.

(Around here people would just outright ignore any law they don't agree with, whenever they possibly could, especially if it can't realistically be enforced without collaboration. Getting people to report actual crimes is hard enough.)

On the question about expected volunteers or perpetrators of the nudity ban, it's somehow assumed that seeing few forced into that would somehow incite the desires to try it out. Remarkably clueless, sure, but... one can dream. On the other hand, the sensitivity of the society might get lowered somewhat, and whole lot of unexpected meanings for flashing added, perhaps.

I have to agree with JoyR. There's a reason NIS is so popular: a strict set of rules in a limited environment allows you to write a story that is possible in current reality (if you change the current laws). Your idea would only work in a completely alternate reality where the 'problems' JoyR mentioned don't exist: a global climate that allows for full nudity and no work/sport/etc. environments that require clothing. Some others are harder to fix too make them somewhat believable. Pure fantasy and way over the top are ok of course, but if it becomes totally ridiculous not many readers will like it.

A new law/program is passed, similar in nature to the naked in school program idea, but going several steps further. Not limited to school, not limited to teens. Not time limited the way the naked in school program is in that universe

Call the program perma-nude.

An adult can self register or a wife can be registered with or without her consent by her husband. Registration of an adult is permanent, no way to unregister.

Permanude/"Permanent Nudity" has been a sub-genre in its own right for probably a decade or so, if not longer. Hard to peg when BareLin and NakedTimeStories(NTS) first started on their stuff at this point. (Where Barelin overlapped with Naked in School, where a naturist form of Permanude was an alternative to NiS participation)

Most of the permanent nudity programs do have registration periods that are not indefinite, although most have a minimum period of 2 years. Lifetime is an option but most don't go that far. Generally, the Permanent Nudity programs were created in the way the were in order to discourage people from signing up, by making it as "unpleasant as possible" for those who signed up.

That said, Friends/Spouses/Frenemies tricking the other into registering permanude is known to happen(ask them to sign something without paying attention to what they signed).

Forgeries happen as well, but as that's "a common excuse" that people use when they change their mind. The government has made the appeals process rather byzantine and complicated. It's usually going to take a month or longer, and possibly some money and a fair bit of time, to even get the appeal to the first stage. By which point most people have adapted to the situation (and in the fiction) have long since decided not to fight it.

There are other options as well, but continuing...

Permanude generally speaking has no age restriction on it. If both parents are permanude, all children/dependants in the household are also enrolled into permanent nudity as well. Once their "dependant" status ends, so long as they are an adult, they then have the option to end that status.

In many cases, in areas where permanent nudity is allowed, there also are parallel nude punishment programs in operation as well(talk about mixed signals). So schools may discipline ("textile") students by having them go nude, parents also have the option to put their children on nude punishment. (Some children ask their parents to put them on nude punishment in lieu of registering Permanude)

Now there are two divergent strains of "Permanent Nudity" in operation. One is basically "enforced Naturism" where all other rules still apply.

The more common one in fiction is Permanent Nudity is some strain of "nude and lewd" where public indecency laws stop applying to them(because they lack body shame), and actually go out of their way to make it so they're legally prohibited from "getting a room" to do many things in private. (There may be another different registration status available for Naturists all the same)

You do have it correct that wearing clothes is a crime for a Permanude, outside of the exemptions you mention. Those mainly being the use of safety equipment, and cold weather gear(but only while outside).

In some of the more fantastical settings, either a super-natural power, or a super-(bio)technological power is used to enable the permanudes to remain naked at all times.

a global climate that allows for full nudity

Maybe Global Warming is not entirely bad.

That's how those gigantic-lobster-like aliens we invited to solve our problems did it, made it controllably tropical everywhere, year long. By the way, they not simply hate clothing, they see wearing armoured suits in public (and even a skimpy bikini qualifies for that in their logic) as dire insult and actively threatening. They outright refused to communicate with clothed humans and can even turn aggressive if pressed. And as we later found out, there's more humans (by orders of magnitude!) living within their hives already, descendants of ancient abduction.

Betty gets into verbal fight and legal debate with the officers, what ends with one them tapping their tablet and then announcing that for interfering with NiS Betty is in for (a relatively short trial period), effective immediately.

As has been pointed out in several NiS stories, if being naked isn't a punishment, why is it used as one?

If police or whoever can force compliance for any amount of time as a punishment, then all those who are naked are being punished.

So, either you choose an alternative punishment OR you accept that being naked is a punishment.

Misogyny? In that context it's minor issue if any, it is just that we guys concentrate our attention on the beautiful bodies of the fair sex, mostly ignoring the odd guy running around with no pants (really, who bothers about that?)

Thank you for proving my comment.

Thank you for proving my comment.

The ladies would be concentrating on the naked guys, so, no, it doesn't do anything to prove your comment unless you presuppose a large disparity in the number of men vs the number of women in the program.

As has been pointed out in several NiS stories, if being naked isn't a punishment, why is it used as one?

If police or whoever can force compliance for any amount of time as a punishment, then all those who are naked are being punished.

So, either you choose an alternative punishment OR you accept that being naked is a punishment.

It's probably exactly part of what Betty was arguing about ;)

Yes, as I said, it's crazy police state, logic doesn't need to apply... or actually, it's twisted beyond recognition with doublespeak and mixed signals, those are there for reason. Yes, it's total non-con. Any NiS is in a nutshell, and it plays with certain base fears and desires, including ones many wouldn't likely lightly admit.

Of course all those enforcement scenarios are unrealistic and counterproductive to say it mildly. It's not the way you talk someone out of their clothes. But the erroneously perceived simplicity of the situation is fun... at least to play with.

As for wearing heated clothing whilst leaving 'the naughty bits' (why can't you just say tits and pussy?) exposed is just plain laughable given the scenario of constant nudity.

Indeed, I too hate those half-assed and arguably ugly workarounds. Those doesn't work on so many levels it is indeed laughable at best.

My proposal here is completely transparent clothing. Not that it's realistic or reasonable either (most real materials that could be actually used would result in rather unhealthy/uncomfortable approximations I suppose) but it at least retains the visual fantasy.

As has been pointed out in several NiS stories, if being naked isn't a punishment, why is it used as one?

If police or whoever can force compliance for any amount of time as a punishment, then all those who are naked are being punished.

So, either you choose an alternative punishment OR you accept that being naked is a punishment.

It's probably exactly part of what Betty was arguing about ;)

Yes, as I said, it's crazy police state, logic doesn't need to apply... or actually, it's twisted beyond recognition with doublespeak and mixed signals, those are there for reason. Yes, it's total non-con. Any NiS is in a nutshell, and it plays with certain base fears and desires, including ones many wouldn't likely lightly admit.

I think part of the "theory" there, with regards to some of the permanent nudity laws, is that some of the legislation and regulations involved were written by people that were openly hostile to the idea in the first place.

They've been told (often by courts, or higher federal authorities, in the backstory) they must allow people to go naked in public.

They don't like the idea of people going naked in public. So they honor the letter of the instruction, in that they make it legal for people go naked in public. But in order for them to do so, they impose a bunch of additional requirements on those people to do so:

1) Require them to register. "Think about the children. We want to make sure that naked adult found near the children's playground is 'a nudist' and not just some flasher"

2) Impose requirements on things they must do for the registration to remain valid. (They can't be "found" to be wearing clothes. "If they see nothing wrong with being naked, then they should have no problem with being naked to the maximum extent possible. This also helps ensure they not just some pervert looking for cover when they're caught flashing those poor children.")

3) But because they have to "be reasonable" certain allowances are made for adverse weather and safety.

4) However, they also authorize public nudity to be used as a "alternative punishment" to make it so the people who are voluntarily nude get confused with people who have run afoul of the law. (This is to make the idea less desirable for "the volunteers.")

1) Require them to register. "Think about the children. We want to make sure that naked adult found near the children's playground is 'a nudist' and not just some flasher"

Exactly how is a child affected by seeing a 'flasher' when some of the teachers (both sexes) are constantly naked..? Not to mention some class mates.

1) Require them to register. "Think about the children. We want to make sure that naked adult found near the children's playground is 'a nudist' and not just some flasher"

Exactly how is a child affected by seeing a 'flasher' when some of the teachers (both sexes) are constantly naked..? Not to mention some class mates.

You're thinking well after the laws hit the books.

They're thinking before the law even goes into force. While nudity is still a scandal and abnormal.

They're going to use any justification they can find to give them a basis for needing to place restrictions "for the public welfare" no matter how paper thin those justifications may be.

Any scenario you choose can be written. The only real limitations are based in the limits of your imagination.

That's quite stating the obvious. My only problem is that I don't speak English at all, lol.

So what I do here is trying to infect someone with weird mind virus resulting in incorporating support for my obscure kink in their own work.

Indeed, what I propose here isn't any definitive scenario, just a kink angle that could be included in, indeed, just any other story, the mundane the better.

Perhaps, it could be approached as excercise in obfuscation.

Such as, continuing the NiS theme, girl is in school, talking to her friends, having a fight with her boyfriend, discussing projects with teachers, whatever. Then, the day ends, she goes out, take her clothes from the NiS box, and puts on. Until then, it wasn't explicitly stated she's naked, or there's NiS Program taking place, but looking back, she's actually not the only one naked either, and certain interactions make way more sense.

Or, it's extended family party/picnic. Most everyone's else clothes are described (perhaps many not exactly favorably either). Besides uncle Ben's seemingly uncalled for rude comments nobody seems to care or give out her state of dress. Her boyfriend arrives, and try to talk her into a date. Despite protests of some of her family, she eventually agree. Then it is the boyfriend who suggests that she, just maybe, should put some clothes on going to the theater. Maybe she indeed does so, something reluctantly, but accepting the stupid rules of society. Or perhaps, "Nah, it's legal now, isn't it?" Is the answer, turns out she's religious nudist. Well, he doesn't insist, and perhaps even express his delight about her habits, physically, if we're so inclined (but not necessarily). The whole thing even could be from boyfriend's POV also.

Or alternatively, even just fishing for a suggestion of a story wherein something like that's done already (by rules of infinity, there must be plenty).

Nudity 24/7/365 just won't work

Of course, outside of strictly controlled environment or fantasy land. Some obsessed nudists claim to approach that in reality though, how believable such accounts and how much "obvious" caveats are ignored remains open.

But in this context, it isn't needed at all. It can be entirely situational, the nudity lasting just hours or even mere minutes, just that it's the starting condition hinted but not explicitly revealed until later.

I suppose instead the hair on their head could be shaved off. That may take nudity too far.

Indeed, at least for my appeal as well. I like long hair way too much. Actually, other body hair too. Way back in school, there was that one girl with very hairy arms. Almost transparent, but, well, fur. I never get a chance to closely examine the rest, but she was intriguing, not only for this sole reason either, but certainly it only added to the intrigue.

Then we also had a girl who had indeed no hair at all, genetic defect. No eyebrows, no eyelashes, no nothing. But she was really master of cosmetics and usually did wear a wig. Except when she decided to go radical and wear silk hercherf or even just nearly transparent scarf. Funny that some didn't catch what's wrong with her for years, seeing her everyday. She was beautiful girl otherwise, and while there was slight uncanny effect, it only made her more exotic.

It's the problem with clothes eating nanites or other magical events destroying fabrics, it likely will target hair too, or be otherwise grossly inefficient for the effect of leaving target (usually everyone) more-or-less suddenly naked.

It's the problem with clothes eating nanites or other magical events destroying fabrics, it likely will target hair too, or be otherwise grossly inefficient for the effect of leaving target (usually everyone) more-or-less suddenly naked.

How long after nanites are launched before the fashion industry makes and releases their own?

A suitably evil plot involving nanites consuming any item of clothing that has been washed more than x-times. What better way to increase business than to have everyones clothes consumed just in time for the new season's latest fashions...?

Obviously rednecks and certain others won't be affected, no 'real redneck' ever washes their John Deere cap or overalls...

A suitably evil plot involving nanites consuming any item of clothing that has been washed more than x-times. What better way to increase business than to have everyones clothes consumed just in time for the new season's latest fashions...?

Indeed, that's quite doable, I believe. Realistically, the clothing would be destroyed during washing of course. So the problem here is making it delayed enough after the washing X to disintegrate in a (hopefully) public place.

One can just broadcast the "eat" signal whenever its needed. No involvement of repeated washing needed, but the problem of overreach remains, although I guess it's quite trivial to make them consume only things containing a marker component.

Getting someone to ever buy that brand after such an event is a whole different trick to pull, lol.

Oh, or you mean, the destructive agent is in the washing powder. Now that may work. It marks the material, deliver the mechanism, and then on command, proof! I like that. It could even be localized with enough sophistication (like a disintegration ray: point the remote, push a botton and the dress falls into dust). Likely just one washing necessary before activation, but probably there's some additional effort to obfuscate the mechanism from the public is needed.

By the way, there are joke swimming costumes that will wash the color out in contact with water leaving the fabric as transparent as flesh colored stockings.

At least, I have heard a couple of stories from sources as reliable as my sister, about her friends buying some by error (supposedly) on vacation. (Many summers ago.)

By the way, there are joke swimming costumes that will wash the color out in contact with water leaving the fabric as transparent as flesh colored stockings.

Joke..??

Dream on..!! They are 'special equipment' purchased on purpose and 'mission specific' [evil grin]

Joke..??

Dream on..!! They are 'special equipment' purchased on purpose and 'mission specific' [evil grin]

I can imagine that! :D

Damsel in distress at its best, or more accordingly to my initial theme of this tread, feigning ignorance as if nothing was amiss. Delicious indeed when done on purpose.

Still I believe that the original idea of the inventors was to smuggle it to the unsuspecting girlfriend somehow.

Much better done by including clothes eating nanites in Ariel-X washing powder. One could program really sophisticated commands in advance, like destroying all clothes containing brand xyz red pigment at 4 July 5:15 PM, but only in Boston.

Damsel in distress

I prefer damsels not in this (or any other) dress. :)

Special nanites gel, that can take form of any clothes, within properties of common fabric (so, can't suddenly turn fire-proof, or good for extreme cold weather). It is controlled by a tiny computer, that sends signal that orders nanites take desired form around the body.
This kind of stuff can offer lots of benefits, like you need to own only one jar of those nanites, instead of a dresser or regular clothes, you can change what you wear in seconds, by giving a command, it is dirt-proof and always sterile, etc, etc. And it perfectly mimics the properties of fabric, so silk feels as silk.
Yet it also can malfunction in any possible way. Starting with computer misread you body shape, data gets corrupted, and the slit on the skirt appears right in front of it... or the computer gets hacked by someone, or your licence for certain fashion types expires, when you forgot to pay for it.
While it provides a number of casual types of clothes for free on purchase, the fashion companies sell their designer stuff for monthly fee.

Yet it also can malfunction in any possible way. Starting with computer misread you body shape, data gets corrupted, and the slit on the skirt appears right in front of it... or the computer gets hacked by someone, or your licence for certain fashion types expires, when you forgot to pay for it.

Attacked by short range EMP.

It makes me extrapolate that if we lived in an African tribe where everyone wore next to nothing, we'd all soon stop noticing or being excited by nudity.

It's a fact, we would. Perhaps, nudity is very normal on some very deep level, and no amount of conditioning in prudishness can fully break it. There some research had been done somewhere, and they concluded what about any nudist knows, that most people adapt to non-sexual nudity extremely fast. In totally nude environments it stops to be perceived as anything special by most people in well under an hour (more like twenty minutes even). There's even a phobia name for fear of nudity: gymnophobia.

Not to be confused with sexually attractive persons stopping being arousing; that never happens and strictly speaking has little to do with clothing.

From personal experience and anecdotal evidence I would say it is when the scene is disturbed in some way when shyness reappears. People who are comfortable nude in each other's company may get completely freaked out by even possibility of being seen by strangers. People comfortable when everyone's nude may feel uncomfortable in presence of clothed people. People comfortable with nudity in one setting may totally object to it in another setting.

In extreme example, presence of a single creep can trigger a dressing wave over a whole beach. (Really, I have seen that myself.)

Speaking of sexiness, much about any outfit, including nudity, can be as arbitrary sexy or not as wearer desire and viewers perceive. Those two not necessarily have to, and much often doesn't align.

gymnophobia.

Fear of no gym? Not being able to exercise at your gym?