Some do and some don't. The locations are generally warm enough for that not to be a factor, and often they don't care about prudery. Some of them do make crude clothing. One woman made herself a bra, but didn't bother with a loin-cloth, so presumably she was more worried about comfort than modesty. One chap got wiped out by sunburn on the first day. Another guy got a thorn in his foot that eventually warranted a medical evacuation. The lack of clothes does make the challenge harder - although a swimming costume would do as well, and be less distracting. The production blurs out any naughty bits (apart from bottoms which are apparently OK), quite aggressively. I'd prefer more clothing and less blurring.

I've seen more episodes now. I'm really struck by how long it takes them to make fire - several days, even when they know how, if they don't have a fire-starter.

I only saw a few episodes. One time a man made something from the skin of an animal he speared. He got food and clothing.

Jeanette Isabelle

I don't watch reality shows, I don't feel they're realistic.

Are you calling me??? Or is this a play on Kitty Purry's video?

I saw all the shows. Quite frankly, getting past the nudity was pretty easy for me. The survival aspects of the show were driving my interest.

The lack of clothing just proved to me that it is a vital survival possession. The right clothing (and footwear) for the right conditions and you have a fighting chance. Without any clothing and you have little protection from the elements (sun, wind, rain, insects, rocks, etc). Either you have to make some sort of cover or you do without. The one gal who weaved herself a hat and a matt knew instinctively what to do. Her survival skills and her mental attitude stood out among the players.

The nudity - that's what set this show apart from the others. Was it a titillating gimmick? Perhaps, but it also was strategic to prove the point that clothing is underrated as your #1 protection.

What I didn't like was the use of only 1 show for the 21 days out in the wilderness. They could have used 2 shows for that because it was obviously that they were doing more survival activities that they were not showing and a couple of the activities were shown on the website.

The nudity is a gimmick and not very applicable to most survival situations. I guess if you were swimming and a rip tide tore your trunks off and you got lost it could happen. But it's got to be a pretty rare time you'd be completely naked. It does seem like it would add a lot of difficulty to your situation. After all, your first line of shelter is your clothes. Naked in SoDak in January...I think you'd be dead in half an hour.

I totally agree, Roar. I'm no prude so it didn't bother me in that way, but the sunburn and the dangley bits with biting insects and animals around made me wonder why more of them didn't make an effort to improvise something, particularly the ones who got cold at night because of previously mentioned fire issues. You're totally right about it showing how important our clothing is.


p.s. as for the ROAR, just a show of feminine solidarity. I am woman! Not THAT woman though.

p.p.s. I got censored?! First time ever. Sorry about that gang.

Clothing...Humankind developed body coverings way back in at at least the Upper Paleolithic for all the noted reasons. The directors of the "reality" show probably wouldn't let the participants do so - it would have been too realistic.

My wife and I enjoyed this show. 2 points - some participants did find or improvise clothes. And on three of the shows the woman were much more competent/coped better than the man. on the other three, it was a toss up.