New "survival show" draws attention

Some of you might remember about 4 or so months ago a person was on this site looking for participants in a show that would drop two people into the middle of no where with nothing.

Well that show has finally made its way to TV. Thought apparently they did give the people participating one personal item. And now the question has been asked by the Yahoo News, "is this going to far"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reality-tv-makes-‘naked’-bid-for-ratings-184504576.html

When the recruiter chat was happening, I recall thinking "Naked? Really?" They wanted a scenario that was "so real that it seems unreal"? I haven't watched it am not fully informed but, only 1 item for 21 days, and naked? Really?

They had just aired the British Army CPT who had walked the Amazon - he was naked on an island with only a med kit and an emergency sat phone for 60 days (iirc). He made it. Really don't want to see people's naked butts. The naked part is to get people to tune in, they may or may not learn anything.

So my one item would be a knife. No brainer.

I believe if I was butt naked and allowed only one personal item, I would have to take one of my big Busse knives or a good Ghurka Khukri. I watched the show of that guy on the island with nothing, and a good blade was something he could've used to maximum effect. His show proved it is better to be lucky than good. When he lost his front tooth, he lost his couth.

If I were in a survival situation, the last thing I want to be is naked.

Jeanette Isabelle

Oh, my, this show sounds just stupid. I thought perhaps a part of the attraction is the eye candy factor, but the still that accompanies the article suggests those craving visual sweets will have to go elsewhere.

Alright, maybe I should take the scenario more serious. So a breeding pair of human beings finds themselves in the wild with no clothing and only one item. I'm guessing that they got kidnapped by aliens who were perplexed by human reproduction, or who were trying to create some sort of alien/human hybrid because their home world got destroyed in an intergalactic war and their only hope is for their DNA to survive in a biped found on a planet whose environment is very hostile to their benzene-based physiology. Anyway, from certain human internet websites the aliens figured out that the first thing you have to do is take off your clothes. So that's why the two people are naked. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Tell me, please - is this why it is known as the "boob tub?" Decent stuff is pretty hard to find these days.

As I read the article one name stuck out in my mind - Kellie Nightlinger. That rang a couple of bells so I googled her. She has a number of survival videos on YouTube that are interesting. She also has a website. The guy is ex-military and has done movie bit parts and stunts -- in a couple of episodes of "Lost".

Or they are trying to replicate man's early beginnings aka "Quest for Fire" to see how modern man could cope.

I googled her, too, and, among other things, I noticed this:

'Naked' star describes fishing with 'private parts,' ruins appetites

I guess sometimes I just can't look away from a train wreck.

I like to think of Ernest Shackleton's 1914-1917 expedition as the gold standard of survival exploits. While the climate may have forced it, it's noteworthy that all three men who reached the South Georgia whaling station were fully clothed (though they had not changed clothes in over a year!)

For all of human history and much of pre-history clothes of some sort were a high priority for most. There may be a reason for that...

I believe it was the invention of the full length mirror.

Men Folk don't try this in the Amazon River Basin, wedding tackle isn't fishing tackle.

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/river-monsters/videos/fish-swims-up-urine-stream.htm

Well, who wants to sunburn that part?

Funny you should mention sunburn. Appears at least one of the participants is suffering from a massive sunburn, if what I gathered from a commercial is correct.

The first episode of Naked and Afraid just reached the UK. It turned out to have very little about survival and instead focused on the ordeal and the interpersonal relationships.

For example, in this episode the pair seemed to do a good job on the first day of building a raised platform to sleep on, with a canopy raised above that, but we were given no details about how they did it, what they used for cordage, etc. Since the 1-hour programme covered 21 days of survival, a great deal was being left out regardless. Also, the pair were each allowed an item, and one took a machette and the other a fire-starting kit, so despite being naked they had the basics covered before they started.

In my case, I would scare away any potential rescuers, so I'd be doomed.

"The first episode of Naked and Afraid just reached the UK"

dreadfully sorry to hear that, old chap.
you were the last bastion of civilized behavior.
i suppose all of that is gone now. ;-)

Pete2

After watching it, do you need to talk to someone? I can recommend a psychiatrist! You may have suffered some trauma.

The first episode wa just about the poorest - they actually got better - more entertaining.

I think I watched 5-10 minutes of one show, where the dude drinks unpurified water and has to be medevac'd out with a temp of 103+. It was then I realized some of these people had as much common sense as a gnat. Waste of time.

I'll bet you missed the new Bear Grylls (however you spell that) reality show. One of the "survival tasks" was to pee in a jar, add muddy water, heat it as quickly as possible to XXX degrees for a few seconds, then chug it down. The first one done was the winner. Survival skill? Yeah, right, Bear.

What a stupid show. I would have peed on Bear myself, then thrown him into the fire until HE heated up to the required temp.

On the flip side, I bet most of us would be a good size signal mirror.

Brings to mind a Cheers episode involving a story line of Norm getting thrown out of a Sox game for taking off his shirt, cuz the glare was distracting the fielders. Norm: "It's not my fault that I have alabaster skin..."

The naked part is less daunting to me than most, for I am Irish, and can run around naked without committing indecent exposure.

Just watched two first episodes without an insult. I think it's an OK show. Quite realistic and colorful. Nudity adds certain complexity to the otherwise rather simple situation and easy escape plan. Great participants. Sure it's nothing like highly technical Les' shows, but interesting enough for a couch analysis.

The stuff that goes wrong, or is hard, is probably the show's best value. They focus on failure more than other survival shows generally do.

Exactly. Watched the entire season - would recommend to my friends, no doubt.

Ok, I've watched a few episodes and my review is mixed. It's entertaining and I really like how most of them come off as closer to what an average Joe would be like in a similar situation.

I just can't get over the nakedness. Some of them seem to be pretty smart about it, and make or find a little clothing but... when the guy was squatting on the log snake hunting with his rod and tackle hanging out. eek!

And, well... the guy that drank from the stream in the jungle and had to be medivaced out.... and the guy who got a major sunburn on day one and then [censored] the rest of the time.... and the guy how whined like a little girl the whole time....

I think we need a new survival show showing a competent woman! ROAR!

No slight to Ruth from MWW intended. I thought she was great and I really enjoyed watching her. I loved how she progressed over the course of the series!

so did these people eventually get some clothes, or tie on some fig leaves? Or did they just get 4'th degree sunburn and really bad tick bites???

NOT that I really have to know.
But since you brought it up ...

Pete2

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.