Taking it all off . . . for journalism???

Via Dustbury, we learn of a journalist who – at the request of her editors – agreed to live nude for a week.

Most people wake up in the morning and get dressed. Last week, I agreed to hop out of bed and not get dressed. I called it Naked Week.

I believe that a lot of things are better without clothes: Bubble baths, swimming under the stars, frolicking between the sheets. When it’s time to cook dinner, scrub the tub or watch “The Big Bang Theory,” I prefer to be wearing clothes.

I agreed to take it all off for a week in the name of journalism. At first, I was going to pass on the assignment. I had all sorts of excuses: How will I walk the dogs? What if the UPS man knocks on the door? It’s too cold to be naked!

But I decided that it might be fun and thought I could learn something so I signed on.

For an entire week, as long as I was at home, I was naked. I wrote articles, interviewed sources, washed dishes, paid bills and watched TV all while I was naked.

. . .

I counted the minutes until the naked experiment was over because there was something awkward about resting a bucket of suds on a naked thigh before setting it down to mop the floor or folding pants while wearing none. I found it downright comical when I stood in front of the fridge and searched for ingredients for dinner while staring at a cantaloupe and cucumbers! (Yes, being naked gave me the mindset of a prepubescent tween).

. . .

If Naked Week taught me one thing, it’s that I need to work on being more comfortable in my own skin, even if it is in dire need of moisturizer. I might start sleeping naked or doing the weekend crossword puzzle in the buff. But for now, I’m off to put on some pants.

There’s more at the link.

I’m afraid I just don’t get it. Would someone please explain to me what, precisely, this stunt was supposed to achieve? What journalistic imperative was served by a week’s nudity at home? In what way was this particular journalist’s career enhanced, or skills developed, by doing so?

Now, if they’d put the whole thing on pay-per-view TV, I could have figured out the reason at once – money! Of course! But as it is, it seems to have been a monumental waste of time . . .

Peter