Did the Lord originally intend that men and women, boys and girls (of any and every age and race) roam around NUDE publicly?

After all, He DID create Adam and Eve TOTALLY naked (Genesis 2:25). Moreover, He did NOT - at THAT time - give them the Sacred-66 HOLY BIBLE to inform them how WICKEDLY naughty is was to appear PUBLICLY pornographic without any clothes on (whether for "doctor's exam," nude-dance-stripping exhibitionism, sunbathing, swimming, gymnastics, or whatever).

The ONE act of disobedience (relating to eating that forbidden fruit from "that tree") indeed brought DEATH - both initial and more permanent - contrary to the Serpent's irrationalized LIE. Part of that "death" involved a SEPARATION AWAY from INNOCENT PERCEPTION both regarding and concerning PUBLIC human nudity.

It is difficult for this author to imagine what it would have been like had Eve and Adam (in THAT GENDER order, by the way, per I Timothy 2:14) not sinned. I myself (like other humans) - in all honesty and frankness - react EROTICALLY (covertly and overtly) when encountered by (besides when aggressively encountering by myself) the NAKED opposite sex.

Apparently, however, the word "naked" was at FIRST never intended to be a part of human vocabulary. God asked forbidden-fruit-filled Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" (Genesis chapter 3)

Furthermore, as the Lord intended (by Genesis 1:28 command) for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sexual connections and reproduce offspring), one wonders if there wasn't some pre-Fall factor which was involved with some at least temporary and occasional "desire" or state of mind resulting in temporary and occasional sexual conjugation among those who would have always been casually nude publicly.

Whatever there was, disobedience-caused 'death' of a most misfortunate kind completely obliterated that. Since then, up to now, and to the ages of the ages, PUBLIC nudity was, is, and eternally will be either EROTICALLY ENTICING or PORNOGRAPHICALLY repulsive, defiling, and expensive (think about the myriad pricey fashions and styles for all sorts of clothes....and with the harsh climactic weather changes since the Garden of Eden, some clothes are VITAL for SURVIVAL).

After Adam and Eve transgressed, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves "aprons" (Genesis 3:7). Go ahead and guess what body parts of theirs were still exposed for shame by such primative insufficiency! When the Lord saw them and their genital underwear, did He reprimand them and promptly demand that they remove such needlessness to once again go totally naked? He did NOT, but instead "made for [them] garments of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21). [Incidently, for you spiritist and vegetarian animal worshippers: "skins" of WHAT]?

Following all that, God gave general-public humans the Holy Bible - which is in complete and understandable accord with the shame-about-being-PUBLICLY-naked mentality of everyone from our ancestral parents to us modern folk on....along with Scriptural inferences and insinuations to desire and need to COMPLETELY (but PRIVATELY) temporally and occasionally EXPOSE our ENTIRE bodies to CERTAIN of the opposite sex we are PRESENTLY MARRIED with, for ALL sorts of SEXUAL positioning and copulations. But gone forever is the innocent, wholesome, healthy, benign, GENERAL-public and CONSISTENT display of sensual phenomena such as:

A host of Scripture verses reiterate the UN-acceptability (not "non"-acceptability) of PUBLIC nudity (e.g. Leviticus 18, Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jeremiah 2, Hosea 1, 1st Timothy 2:8-9, and many more).

Yet, NON-pictoral (i.e. NON-illustrated) and non-titillating descriptions and admiration of PRIVATE SPOUSAL body-part beauty are profusely and LEGITIMATELY portrayed in the (obviously NON-pornographic) Old-Testament Song of Solomon [PUBLICLY-readable AUDIBLY] and elsewhere (though SPARSELY) throughout the rest of the entire HOLY BIBLE.

Compromising errant MIS-translations of Scripture exacerbate the problem of especially Christian women and girls PRESUMING that [OVERLY-graphic] loose-long-haired "mopheadedness" is acceptable PUBLIC hairstyle in HETEROSEXUAL (mixed-gender) view....and heretic mis-renditions of the Bible complicate conveyance of the solution of mandating GENERAL-public (and CONSISTENT!) wearing of (decent) interwoven back-of-head ponytail or bun/pug chignon hairstyle.

For example, the King James Version (KJV) and some other recent translations mis-state Song of Solomon 7:5. In that Canticles passages, IS the husband MERELY sensuously describing and longing for his bride's "hair" -- or is he INSTEAD alluding to the "flowing locks" of her hair as being as beautiful as 'Carmel' and 'purple' with which 'the king' is 'captivated?'

Strong's Word# 1803 for the previously-mentioned word in question within the inerrant ben-Asher HEBREW Received Text of the Old Testament is defined as:

(1) "locks hanging down" by The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.....
(2) "hair hanging down" by The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew/English Lexicon....
(3) "unbound hair" by The William Holladay Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.