Naked And Afraid And Quite Masochistic

Why the hell completely naked?

Aside from the fact that it creates ratings and justifies the show's bombastic title, of course...

At what point in human history did men and women walk around completely naked? Is the show about impersonating our Cro-Magnon ancestors? Even they were partially clothed. I can only think of nudist beaches as places where men and women strut around with no clothes on. And showers. And swinger clubs. But those are hardly places where the question of survival ever comes up.

This isn't a show about bare-naked survival though, it's a show about naked people being observed and filmed by a large production team. Not quite the same thing.

Nor does the situation in any episode in any way represent any possible, realistic scenario. If two people used to the comforts of civilization were suddenly stranded somewhere in remote wilderness, chances are very high they'd be fully clothed, and they would possess certain personal items, perhaps even some water and food. And they certainly wouldn't have any survival skills.

But in NAA it's the complete opposite: they have no clothes but they do possess high outdoors skills. Which is why the highly ridiculous set-up is much more suitable for some weird Olympic sport based on masochism than a show that actually mimics any kind of real-life survival situation.

In other words, the show is highly hypothetical, to put it mildly. To be blunt: the premise is downright idiotic. It doesn’t mimic any real potential situation that may occur in real life but instead comes off as just another artificial reality-TV situation, absurd and contrived.

It's merely exploitation TV. Which is why the participants are so amusing when they go into this with high ideals, giving speeches about life and the universe. No, you're just on a trashy reality-TV show, that's all it is.

Besides, the participants may be naked, but because their bits are blurred the show cheats on us. If you're not going to show their full nudity then they are "naked and afraid" only to the producers and the film crew. Not to us.

Afraid of what?

Scared of what? Those bears and crocs that are edited in during post-production? Those jaguars and alligators that were filmed a mile away a week before the challenge even started?

Make no mistake: a show that REALLY allowed large wild animals to threaten and endanger contestants to this extent would simply not be LEGAL, or would be borderline illegal at the very least. Just as we know that "Cheaters" is a totally fake show (aside from the bad acting) because a lot of the stuff that goes on there would be illegal in real life, the same logic tells us that NAA has to be scripted and doctored in some ways in order to exaggerate dangers - while secretly removing those obstacles off-camera.

The fears that are valid and believable are fears of bugs and scorpions, of the weather, of getting ill, of snakes, of the fire extinguishing. However, by far the fear most advertised is the fear of large predators, a fear that the production plays up too much, considering how staged a lot of this is. There are many very corny "oh, come on" moments of cheesy and unconvincing editing. Plenty of the staged "lurking large predator night danger" scenes are similar to what we get in cheap found-footage horror films.

Besides, most of these people aren't smart enough to be afraid. To be afraid of a very hostile environment (which the production team cannot control 100%) requires some measure of intelligence which is something sorely lacking among the vast majority of contestants.

Survival... or perhaps just masochism?

Bottom line: every participant knows they are safe, that there is a large crew surrounding them, and that they can tap out any time they wish to. It's a game, not of survival, but a game of pain and endurance - which is the epitome of pointlessness. WHY test your limits of needless torment? What is to be gained from this? What is to be learned from finding out how much suffering you can tolerate? Are they preparing for a post-apocalyptic world? Even in a post-apocalyptic world people would be clothed. Test yourself and your stamina in small ways - that's perfectly fine. But to this extent? It proves nothing but the fact that you are a masochist fool.

Whoever makes it to the full 21 days of this utterly pointless self-torture is a masochist by definition. First and foremost.

A real survival situation leaves no doubts to the fact that there is nobody to help out in case of an emergency. None of these contestants are in a survival situation. Not one. They are all perfectly safe. They may get injured or get bad infections, but none of them are about to snuff it in any of these jungles and savannahs. The fact that nothing truly drastic ever happened in 12 seasons only further proves this.

Hence I believe that the word "survivalist" gets overly used and abused, it should be replaced by "masochist".

Is bravery at play here - or is it something else?

We've already established that these people are masochists. This begs the question: can a masochist be considered courageous for placing himself in harm's way - or is he merely exercising his hobby?

There is no major difference between this kind of masochist nonsense and subjecting yourself voluntarily to medieval torture. Searching for one's pain threshold voluntarily and to these extremes is pure, clear-cut masochism. There is no going around it: these people are primarily masochists. Hence their "bravery" has to be questioned.

Bravery would be if a non-masochist chose to do this. Or would that be more stupidity and foolishness though?

However way you spin it, foolishness, masochism and stupidity are the key factors here, not bravery.

"I am doing this to prove to myself that I am strong and independent."

Independent? You've got a whole crew of doctors and producers looking after you! Just give the word and they're there to help out.

This is a bit like the cliche of the "rebellious" teen who rebels from the safe confines of his parents' house i.e. he gets all the benefits of society's protection - yet he allegedly "rebels" against this same society. Just as the clueless, confused teen creates a fantasy world of quasi-rebellion, the "survivalist" masochist NAA participant lives under the misapprehension that what he is attempting is the ultimate feat of independence.

This is the most common hence most predictable and "oh come on!" statement, used by 90% of the female participants. Almost never used by men.

This statement comes just a few minutes after "I know I am as tough and as strong as any man out there and I will prove it".

So which is it? Are you confident, or are you in need of proving something to yourself? The two statements are in blatant contradiction/opposition to one another; a daft contradiction that the show's greedy, manipulative producers would notice - you might think. Well, they don't notice it, because the show is made by clods, for clods and with clods.

I watch the show. Yes, I am a clod too. Hey, but at least I never volunteered to take part in it!

Whenever a person says they want to "do this tough thing in order to prove" this that and the other, know that usually you're dealing with an insecure person with a chip on their shoulder.

Or a chip and a tattoo on the shoulder, as is the case with NAA often...

"Independent and strong", my ass!

The show's producers cheat regularly, providing couples with IVs, medical attention and even food.

What, you actually thought they were surviving 21 days in the freezing cold and/or ultra-hot environments on just one small lizard per week?

If you believe that the show doesn't lie and cheat, then you might just be an ideal candidate for it!

"I am doing this for my kids. To prove that... "... bla bla bla...

This is the 2nd-most common statement in the show, used by around 95% of women who have kids. I don't know why so many female participants need to lie to themselves (and/or us) about their motives. Though admittedly, it is abundantly obvious that the show’s feminist, left-wing producers eke out these kinds of gender-specific grrl-power comments. These women are literally goaded into saying these kinds of dumb, corny things. Guys come up with some pretty daft reasons too but at least their motives vary from one individual to another, but with women it's these same 2-3 cliches recycled into infinity. How about a little originality, ladies?

Women with small kids that do "the challenge" are in particular need of psychiatric evaluation. They don't seem to realize or care that their kids will be witnessing them on TV spending time naked with a perfect stranger, a male stranger who is also naked. Little do these women understand - or care - about the frail psyche of young children.

Not to mention the fact that they are separated from their young kids for as much as a month (3 weeks in the wilderness plus the trips to and fro), which is a huge amount of time for small children to be left like this.

These egomaniacs may want to justify their selfishness by making up nonsensical reasons why they're doing it i.e. how the show will benefit others, namely their kids. But in all honesty, HOW can their participation truly benefit their kids or anyone else? It can't. To believe so is absurd. These people are doing it for the adventure, the excitement - and to be on TV. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with their kids... If they really cared enough about their kids they would stay at home with them instead of waltzing off into jungles, and in a sense running away from responsibility.

"I am doing this to run away from responsibility because being at home with three kids gets really tiresome and annoying after a while. This is my break from their screaming and from all the housework."

That would be a refreshingly honest statement, but of course, it will never happen... Honesty is usually politically-incorrect which is why in this day-and-age virtue-signaling i.e. dishonesty rules the world.

"I am doing this for my kids, so when they grow up and see the show they know that they can do and achieve anything in life they want."

Well, not quite. You're doing the show so your kid can see that you can do anything stupid - no matter how embarrassing or pointless - and that you can do all this nonsense as long as you'd brown-nosed the producers long enough by begging them to be on their show, while exaggerating - or flat out lying to them - about your prowess in nature. Yeah, great examples for kids, indeed. Sycophancy, attention-seeking, and narcissism: awesome behavioural traits to advertise to yer kiddies... No wonder Zoomers are such a pathetic generation.

Child: "Hey, when I grow up I also wanna become an attention-seeking insecure loser who degrades themselves in front of millions of viewers for a small stash of cash!"

Trouble is, when their kids grow up, they will have the dubious honor of seeing how dumb their mother was to sign up for a masochistic, trashploitationary show - while getting paid peanuts for it. (By all accounts, these contestants/guinea-pigs/volunteers get only around $1,000 per week for the grueling ordeal. I believe that some Third World slave-children in Nike factories might make more money than that - especially when you consider that this jungle buffoonery is a 24-hour job.)

When the kids grow up they will question themselves: "Am I as dumb as my parents? How high are the chances that my DNA is just as flawed as theirs?" If anything, these kids will doubt themselves even more, not to mention the trauma of being made fun of at school while their mother runs around naked in a jungle trying to catch a lizard the size of a peanut. That's not survival, that’s slapstick.

And slapstick may be funny (to some people), but it's hardly "inspiring" in the Scott of the Antarctic kind of way.

These kids might need to change schools after the episode is aired.

A much more honest and realistic reason for doing the show would be:

"I am doing this to feed my enormous, self-centered, attention-starved ego. I want to be on TV, seen by the whole world – as a tough person - because in fact my confidence is just a front and I am actually plagued with self-doubts. I want to make Discovery's producers loads of money while I myself get paid peanuts for my suffering. That way I get to be exploited by opportunistic, sadistic TV yuppies and that's exactly what I want."

Bringing a rare bug or infection to the household: a great gift for the kids

I am not sure that any of these people who have young kids even consider the very real possibility that they bring along some nasty virus or bug on them, endangering the family members. There is only so much protection that 50 injections can provide, as I am sure all guinea-pigs get them beforehand. In one of the early seasons a person caught something so vicious that it took them almost a year to recover.

"I received the highest rewards from the industry for my stunt work, but I still felt not good enough, which is why I am doing NAA."

An actual quote from episode 1113, from an Australian stuntwoman.

This explanation, for once an honest one, reveals the kind of confusion and insecurity that guides a lot of these people to volunteer for such pointless nonsense.

If being among the best in her chosen profession isn't enough, then clearly there are some serious underlying psychological issues at play here. This kind of insecurity is pathological almost, as is this rather extreme need to "prove" something to herself and/or others.

This woman is very far from any kind of "grrl power". She, in fact, is to be pitied rather than envied. I believe that quite a few participants are of this ilk, insecure people putting up a front of toughness.

There is no doubt whatsoever that even after she had completed her challenge she was still deeply unhappy about herself, or at least malcontented. The thrill of NAA "success" is short-lived. It is fleeting. After a few weeks or months she must have reverted back to feeling inadequate or unfulfilled or whatever, because she went to the jungle instead of a shrink.

"I am doing this to prove that I have no irrational fear of lions anymore."

This is an actual quote from episode 1118 by a Canadian woman who had survived a vicious lion attack. What makes this motive so extremely stupid is that fear of large predators is not irrational - especially when one had already been attacked by one. The normal, rational, intelligent reaction to surviving such an attack is to STAY AWAY from such animals in the future. Instead, she wants to "face her fears" or some such nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with being fearful of certain things, simply because recognizing dangers and avoiding them is an integral part of survival. Whoever doesn't understand this is an oaf. Only dumb and/or very confused people actually believe that they can "conquer" all their fears or subdue all of nature. The real world however doesn't work this way, not even close.

Proof that they lie about the motives

Contestants that claim they do this for the kids are liars. Whether they consciously lie or merely lie to themselves is moot. The proof is in the fact that many of them reappear in subsequent seasons.

Why would you do this AGAIN if your only mission was to prove to your kids that "you can achieve anything bla bla bla"? The fact that some people appear in 3-4 episodes is concrete proof that they do NAA for their own egos, for fun, to appease their inner masochist, or whatever. Not to prove anything to their kids.

Not to mention that by going on additional adventures, they leave their kids behind, for as long as 50 days in some cases. That's not love of children, that's just plain narcissism and egotism. If they really were attached to their kids as much as they claim to be, they'd never agree to doing additional challenges.

"These three weeks have taught me that you can't beat nature, you can only try to adapt to it."

Or some such drivel. A very common statement, predominantly used by the male contestants who tend to underestimate the challenge even more than the women.

If you're 30 years old, and STILL hadn't learned that you don't "own" nature, but needed this kind of extreme experience to find out that you're a mere dumb insect in the cosmos and that NOBODY owns nature, then you have to be extremely deluded, perhaps even borderline cretinous.

It is interesting to watch some of the pompous alpha males who enter a jungle get humbled by the surroundings. I've always believed that the majority of people don't quite understand their place in the universe, hence why there are so many egomaniacs and self-important idiots running around. Every person who excessively beats their chest to "prove" something is a disturbed individual, cut off from the real world.

"Thank you oh sweet lizard for providing me with your protein!"

"I am thankful to this animal [that I just brutally killed] for sacrificing itself to help feed me."

Perhaps the daftest thing the more hippie-like participants say as they roast the meat of a snake or lizard over a fire.

None of those animals raised their legs as volunteers to be eaten (especially not the snakes). Given half a chance, they would prefer to have murdered the participants in self-defense or at least scampered away unharmed. Nor does the animal get any kind of benefit from your dumb little "gratitude prayer" as you crush its tiny ligaments inside your mouth. Nor does it get to even hear your little speech, while we’re at it. So who are you talking to? The thing’s already dead, and it doesn’t understand English!

They are to talking to US, the audience. Yet more very obvious virtue-signaling - mixed in with a light dose of guilt. Very light.

Thanking a murdered beastie for feeding you is some seriously disturbed New Age sheet! Either be an idealistic vegetarian or be realistic about eating meat: you can't have it both ways, to eat meat yet play the role of the compassionate vegan. That's just silly. It reminds me of Homer Simpson sobbing while eating his pet lobster.

Contestants don't need a TV show to do this nonsense

Whatever exalted, "inspiring", corny-baloney reason a contestant gives for signing up for this dross, know this: if they really ONLY wanted to be "challenged" and "pushed to the limit" they could do it ON THEIR OWN. What's preventing anyone from going into a desert or jungle naked without food or water?

The snag is that there is no CAMERA TEAM to follow them around if they do it by themselves. No witnesses to their "great" adventure! Which means they're doing it just to SHOW OFF, not to have a bloody "spiritual journey" as they always claim. Every contestant is a bloody exhibitionist and an attention-ho. That's what they are, first-and-foremost. Some more, some less, but all of them have to be attention-seekers to some large extent. No sane, down-to-Earth person signs up for this sort of nonsense. This is more suitable for misfits, the confused, the bored adventurers, the fame-seekers and the adrenaline junkies.

No wonder 90% of them turn out to have mental issues; who the hell would want millions of strangers to watch them in a 40-minute TV program as they eat their own excrement, freeze like bunnies, looking like a bunch of confused zombies?

There is no instant SAFETY NET if they do this survival shtick on their own: another reason why these people prefer to go on a "survival trip" for Discovery Channel. They are protected.

Which brings us to the next point...

It's not real survival when you know you can always be saved

The knowledge that you can always "tap out" and be saved from the shitty ordeal doesn't lend much credence to the life-and-death dangers that the contestants are allegedly facing.

Sure, they are being tortured by the environment and the sadistic producers, but all they need is to say "I quit" and an hour later they're in a warm hotel with plenty of food and fine wine. Did Robert Scott have a "tapping out" option when he struggled on the South Pole? That was real survival, not this farce.

REAL survival is not having that cushy option. The knowledge that nobody can save you is what differentiates actual survival from this dumb circus.

Three weeks of suffering (and cheating) - summed up in a measly 43 minutes

Each couple gets just one episode, never an entire series! And for what? For three weeks living like a naked bum.

To be precise, only 0.15% of the time spent in the "challenge" is actually shown. What happens in the remaining 99.85% is anyone's guess. By comparison, on "Deadliest Catch" a season typically consists of roughly two months, and is summarized in 23 episodes, which is a lot more extensive and detailed. Not to mention formats such as "Big Brother" and the like which may even be streamed live throughout.

But not only the contestants get cheated this way, the viewers do too. Because how the hell do you summarize three weeks in less than an hour? I am convinced there is plenty of interesting stuff that goes on during a 3-week challenge, which 43 minutes simply cannot accomodate. Extending each episode to full two hours would be far better. Though still too little.

Typically, more than half the episode is taken up by the first three days, and then the following 10-18 days are speedily and sloppily rushed through in the remaining 10-15 minutes. Which is of course ridiculous.

Not to mention that this leaves even more room for manipulation by the corrupt, deceptive producers.

Tramp stamps and other vapid ink blotches

It never fails to amuse and fascinate me that nearly every contestant is tattooed. I'm particularly amazed how many of these quasi-feminist women have a tramp stamp - which to me is as anti-feminist as you can get.

Skanky grrl power? Only millennials might understand that logic...

Tattooes are an idiotic fad which draws in sheep, zombies and the like. Insecure people who desperately crave to be more "interesting" get inky splotches. Another major demographic are all the deluded/deranged exhibitionists whose obsession with their own bodies and faces nudges them toward unnecessary inking. Because a large % of the western world falls into either of those two categories, we have a situation now where being tattooed is the norm. Which is ironic, because sheep believe that getting inky splotches makes them different, and even "rebellious". Certainly as far as NAA is concerned NOT being inked up like a circus clown makes you far more "different" and unusual than having them.

Besides, how neatly the tattoos tie in with my masochism theory...

PSR - Primitive Survival Rating

Primitive Slacking Rating, more like. Considering that those who work the least achieve the most "success".

One of the dumbest aspects of the show (and as you can see, there are so many) is the ridiculous, totally subjective "expert rating" that every guinea-pig is assigned before and after each "challenge". Essentially, the show's producers draw numbers out of their asses, because how the hell are they supposed to assess these absurd PSRs when most of what they "know" about the volunteer's experience is what the volunteer TELLS them? Each volunteer obviously tries to exaggerate their survival know-how just to beat out the other hundreds of candidates who are just dying to be on the show, because they're so bloody eager to be exhibitionist clods.

Even dumber than the initial PSR is the adjusted PSR after the "challenge". The logic is often sorely lacking. Just because a person catches a virus (through sheer bad luck) and is forced to quit somehow justifies their PSR tumbling down. In other words, it serves as much as a LUCK RATING as anything else.

The post-challenge PSR often punishes those who work hard - while rewarding slackers who let their partners do all or most of the work. Because "conserving energy" seems to be the (unintentional) mantra of this show far more than displaying actual survival skills.

Nor does the idiotic PSR rating ever take into account that some environments are harsher than others. For example, the Botswana episode (season 3) had both nudists "tap out", simply because there was no water source. By comparison, in some other regions both exhibitionists made it through the 3 weeks, having had a water source and less extreme weather conditions - two crucial factors.

PSR is basically one of those apples-and-oranges things. Utter nonsense, highly subjective, completely unfair – hence nonsensical. Made even worse by the fact that the PSRs are announced by that pompous, overly dramatic narrator.

BSR – BS Rating

Instead of the usual PSR nonsense, I'd like the narrator to give the show itself a BS rating for each episode.

Sort of like this:

"In this episode we used editing to trick the viewer into thinking there were 5 more situations of danger from wild animals than there really were, and we exaggerated that situation with the lion by making it appear as if he was meters away from the shelter, when in fact he was in a different country - and in a different time as a matter of fact. Our crew made weird lion noises to scare the morons, which we anyway do just for kicks. We yet again manipulated events in such a way as to make the female look strong and independent, because we're so politically-correct and do-gooderish, and we failed to mention the huge hotel breakfast that we served to both contestants on day 11. Obviously, we gave the woman twice as much food as the man - and we made him promise not to divulge this fact to the press or on the internet otherwise we'd never invite him for NAA XL. So this week's BSR is 8.9. Quite low by our standards because we usually inject even more fiction than that."

Ideally suited for pro-active fitness freaks - or is this show a paradise for masochistic, anorexic slackers?

The majority of episodes tend to support the latter, that these so-called "wilderness challanges" are better suited for lazy masochists. There are many episodes in which the hard-working partner (usually the male) burns out early, then is on the verge of quitting because they'd over-exerted themselves. There are many examples of non-active participants who basically sign up for three weeks of starvation which they spend lying on the ground.

Guess who has more success overall?

The lazy masochists, obviously. This show is more about starvation slacking, less about real wilderness skills.

This means that the show's concept is not only deeply flawed but totally misleading. The show's producers praise the ability to simply make it to day 21, but they don't really take into account nearly as much HOW this is achieved, which to me should be the crucial point. The proof for this is in the absurd PSR rating which punishes hard-workers who do the bulk of the work but tap out due to injury and/or malnutrition, while rewarding the masochist slackers who slyly opt to "conserve energy" which they do by lying around all day.

Of course, if the challenges were to be expanded to 40 or 50 days, then we'd have very different outcomes: the lazy moochers would not be able to survive, simply because 3 weeks is pretty much the human limit for this kind of starving and malnutrition.

Case in point, a New Age yoga vegan girl, Makani, from season 10, who pretty much did NOTHING for three weeks and made it to day 21 simply by lying down all day long and chewing on grass, while basically mocking her partners (there were three people in this episode) that they are wasting too much energy. In the long(er) run, this is NOT survival. It is death. No lazy, masochistic, anorexic vegan of her ilk would ever survive more than a month or two, tops, in any harsh environment. Without the cozy benefits of modern civilization, 100% of all western vegans would perish very quickly. Nature has no tolerance or place for passive losers. And yet, the show makes her out to be a "success" which she clearly wasn't - or at least not in a way that is compatible to what we know is REAL survival (i.e. hunting, working hard, being active, building things, setting traps). Lying on your ass all day is survival?! Yeah, right...

But this is what a lot of the show boils down to: "don't waste too much energy, or you will burn out quickly". Our cave era ancestors did not survive by sitting on their asses all day long, trying "not to burn calories". That's not how survival works, not at all how nature works, not how life works...

Best Scene Ever

There is no question that the show's highlight is when the production team got attacked by a swarm of killer-bees.

Did I feel any pity for them? Not an iota. They make huge amounts of money watching low-paid losers struggle in a crap environment. If that isn't exploitation, nothing is.

Manipulative Editing

Without exception every episode has a dozen scenes edited in such a way as to manipulate the (dumber) viewer into thinking that there is a crocodile or a bear or a leopard just meters away from the suffering couple.

The truth is, there never is a croc, or a bear or a leopard anywhere near them, or if so, very rarely. If a croc approached them the shooting would stop, the croc would get removed and then the contestants would be brought back to their camp. That's how it plays out, I am convinced of it. No insurance company on the planet would allow for such high risk factors. Besides, the fact that nobody ever got attacked by a croc or bear pretty much proves how fake the “dangerous” situations are.

The truth is, there is a TON of security personnel surrounding the camp site, aside from the technical personnel and producers. Some are there to ensure the safety of the production team as well as the survival couple, which includes tasks such as shooing away any large, dangerous animal that might get anywhere near the location spot. So the real survivors and heroes of the show are the behind-the-scenes guards! They are the first lines of defense.

At least that's how I envision it. What other explanation can there be for why no contestant has EVER been attacked by any of those large dangerous animals? Work it out: over 100 shows times 3 weeks times a whole bunch of wild animals = not one incident of that kind. I can only recall that someone got bit by a scorpion, that's basically it.

Or at least I'd like to think that an alligator didn't eat both contestants in some un-aired episode.

"I am doing this for all the Alaskan women, to show them we can do it."

An actual quote from episode 908, from LeAnn.

Many female contestants start off with feminist speeches (no doubt egged on by the producers, who are on the payrolls of Cultural Marxist corporations) which actually achieve the opposite of what they are intended to project: namely, strength. In fact, very ironically, it is a sign of great weakness to have a chip on your shoulder as large as Hudson Bay. Going on and on about how "women are as tough as men and I will prove it" shows insecurity and even a sense of inferiority, if anything. Otherwise, we'd have a lot of the male contestants droning on and on about "male power", wouldn't we?

But we don't. Not one man on the show ever said that he was doing this to prove that men are superior, or anything like that. Hm, I wonder why...

The fact that none of the men claim to be carriers of "male pride" or "male hope" and some such nonsense tells us that men are (more) confident, that they do this idiot show for themselves only, for their own inflated egos - rather than pretending to carry some imaginary goofy "gender flag". It's as if most female participants have some holier-than-thou social agenda, while the men are there to have a "fun" time, or just show off. In fact, some of these women want to show off too, but it isn't in female nature to be so blatant about having a huge ego as it is with men who are more honest and direct about it - and some of these female participants do indeed have enormous egos.

Again, I need to reiterate that it is the producers that motivate the women to make these feminist comments, because that is the political agenda they'd chosen for the show, for reasons I explain later on this list.

Men rarely go on this show to "compete" with women, or not nearly as much as women do to compete with their male partners. Men are wired to compete with other men, not females. The fact that certain female participants accentuate competition so much - as opposed to partnership and team-work - reveals their huge egos and insecurities, not feminism. Fake confidence isn't feminist, never will be. It reveals their true agenda and their egotism. Has nothing to do with "grrl power". Certainly, some men are also guilty of competing with their partners instead of cooperating, but this isn't the case nearly as often as vice versa.

Besides, it's pretty preposterous for ONE individual, male or female, to claim to be "representing" an entire gender, an entire country, a whole city, a whole region... or whatever else. That Alaskan woman's success or failure doesn't amount to a hill of beans vis-a-vis how tough or un-tough Alaskan women are, or just women in general. What one single clown "achieves" on this pointless, heavily edited show in no way shape or form reflects on the abilities of an entire demographic. She represents only herself hence no amount of politically-correct virtue-signaling flag-waving can change that obvious fact.

In an episode from a recent season a black male stated that he will "disprove the cliche that black people don't do survival adventure". This claim is just as nonsensical as all the feminist ones, because one black man "succeeding" or "failing" in this silly TV show proves absolutely nothing about the millions of black people, either way. But hey, at least he made that comment with a smile on his face i.e. he didn't take himself so seriously, as is the case with some female participants who pompously and with militant grimness announce their own feminist motives...

Or pseudo-motives, because I don't believe any of them when they claim that they are participating "for the good of womenkind". I generally don't trust anyone who makes political, "virtuous", righteous speeches or announcements or promises, be they politicians are just regular civilians, especially in front of a camera... Every virtue-signaling person is a fraud on some level, regardless of their demographic... Just consider all the narcissistic celebs posting politically-correct comments on Twitter, and what huge hypocrites nearly all of them turn out to be... Advertising one's own "goodness" and "moral superiority" is a very clear RED FLAG that the person in question is a phony, hence probably the polar OPPOSITE of how they try to present themselves. Ellen Degeneres? Bill Cosby? The list goes on and on...

In fact, a study shows that sociopathic and narcissistic personalities - both genders and of all races - tend to virtue-signal a lot more than decent people. The reason for this is obvious: it's the same reason why a notorious mobster donates millions to charities, while making sure that everyone knows about it...

The very obvious political agenda

As with nearly every movie, TV series, or reality show nowadays, there is usually a (not so) hidden political agenda involved. Why? Because people (in the media) are righteous eyholes who like to play it safe, and they can't resist the urge to use their power and influence to force their own opinions down viewers' throats. Plus, of course, their uber-wealthy employers...

In the case of "Sort-of-naked & Afraid & Two Very Silly Morons", the main subject is feminism. At least half of all episodes have a feminist sub-plot or subtext that permeates the proceedings. The producers are a little too eager to prove that women are equal to men when it comes to endurance, even physical strength. (If they were, wouldn't they be competing in all sports against each other? Why are tennis and basketball divided along gender lines if the sexes are physically equal?) The show's head producer even blatantly lied in an interview: "It is usually women that do better than the men."

Quite a bold statement in light of the fact that it's the guys who do 90% of the hunting and most of the work, while the female contestants often just lie around moaning that the guys aren't catching enough game.

Can't we just accept that both men and women have their strengths and weaknesses? DIFFERENT strengths and weaknesses, for why would nature create two sexes but make them the exact same? That would make zero sense. If the sexes were the same then there would only be one sex and we'd multiply like asexual worms. The fact that we're not asexual worms and have two sexes makes us an advanced species. (At least compared to amoeba, worms and bacteria.) Whoever stupidly and naively tries to reduce humans back to a unisex species is basically trying to get us to devolve to a worm state.

Men and women are definitely not equal in everything. The sexes aren't androgynous clones of each other, they differ: so frigging obvious. Women do certain things better than men, and reversely men do some things better than women: nature created this divide precisely so that the sexes compliment each other, so that both sexes need each other for long-term success and survival. Because if they didn't need each other, the species would segregate by gender and rot out. Western Marxists are trying to blur the lines between the sexes despite a ton of scientific evidence that contradicts them, because Marxism is in its entirety based on delusional horsesmanure, wishful fantasies and a pathological refusal to accept nature AS IS. These are the kind of people producing the show.

Liberals are always trying hard to create tensions between the sexes, between the rich and the poor, and between races. They thrive on division. They don’t realize that humanity works best when the sexes/races/classes accept their respective strengths and weaknesses and work together toward common goals. A disunited society in which men and women are at odds with one another - just so some activist pumpkinheads can "prove" their asinine political/social theories - is a recipe for disaster in which everyone loses. Men and women weren't created to compete with one another, but to compete with others from the same sex: men compete with other men, and women compete with other women, a self-evident fact that seems to be lost on idealists and romantics who see everything in terms of some imaginary all-encompassing "fairness" and "class struggle". The universe however isn't fair and doesn't give a damn about our lofty delusions about equality. Gender-based role-division in nature dominates the animal kingdom and we're no different than animals when it comes to the basics - despite what nitwit neo-Marxists claim, because they place humans way above animals (which just reveals the extent of their narcissism and arrogance).

The feminist agenda aided-and-abetted through false reporting

Several male contestants had already displayed their anger over the way the episodes are cut. It's telling that none of the female contestants have come out with accusations of gender bias.

Case-in-point, the episode with Kim and Shane. Kim had trouble after eating a turtle, and the producers broke their rules by stepping in to give her medical help and even food. None of this was shown or even mentioned in the episode: Kim simply appeared to have made a miraculous recovery. (Girl poweeeeeeer!) At the same time, Shane had three broken toes which the narrator simply referred to as a "foot injury". Quite fair, huh?

Here's what Shane said, and he pretty much nailed it: “When I agreed to do the show I said to the producers that if you’re going to do a real, raw show I will do it. They said they wanted to show the reality and how difficult it was, but they went for the ratings. They gave it the Hollywood treatment.”

I recall an early episode on a remote island in which the woman's hunting successes were shown in detail, while the guy catching a squid was left out – which was included later in the bonus-scenes show at the end of the season. That's further proof that the show's producers are rabid liberals hell-bent on twisting facts (as liberals do) in order to "prove" some point or perhaps to score political points with Hollywood's Establishment. Perhaps some of them have dreams of directing and producing Tinseltown flicks? Only hardcore Marxists get to have big careers in contemporary Hollywood, so...

The left-wing world needs to finally learn that you don't change the world by LYING to people. Idealism always clouds realism. Say no to idealism, kids. Be pragmatic, value common sense - which neatly always goes against the various ISMs.

The left-wing media needs to understand that they will never achieve anything (in the long run at least) by cheating and by manipulating facts. No amount of editing and Lara-Craftian Hollywood nonsense will change either biology or the human species. Feminism had won a long time ago, it achieved essentially all its goals; their main goal was social and economic equality, not an admittance by men that there is total physical equality between the sexes - the kind of nonsense that many feminist extremists actually believe in. Despite the women's rights movement scoring so many victories, there are still some malcontents who aren't satisfied with that. Until every male starts believing in nonsensical fairy-tales about the sexes, the liberal push for some imaginary “100% equality” will be relentless. Which means it will be forever unrelenting because you can't keep feeding BS to people and expect everyone to fall for it.

Yes, please, Mr. PC Fantasist, try to scientifically prove that women are physically as strong as men. They aren't nor do they have to be. They have qualities that men don't have: isn't that enough? Apparently not. Certainly not to malcontents.

Next thing you know some people will try to convince us that chimps are as intelligent as humans, and if anyone dares to deny that they will be called... what will be the new PC word for being anti-animal? You will be called an animalist, a person who "discriminates" against animals just because you don't subscribe to the "facts" that chimps and other animals are just as bright as humans.

Here's the notorious incident, more proof of pro-female favouritism...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348389/EXCLUSIVE--Naked-Afraid-FAKE-Survival-contestant-secretly-given-IV-drip-baby-food-getting-ill-eating-turtle--viewers-told.html

The fact that Kim received an IV and some food (which was left out of the show) - while Shane Lewis's foot injury was underplayed not only once again proves the feminist agenda, but it means that every single episode should be suspected of being doctored, edited and manipulated in ways that deceive the audiences, that skewer the truth about what really went on during the so-called challenge. The fact that this kind of blatant cheating went on already in the very first episode is pretty laughable, because reality shows are notorious for becoming more fake as the seasons pile up, not less.

Are maps female?

A fair question, because in nearly every episode it is the female participant that receives the map in their bags, almost never the man.

If the producers actually thought this would go unnoticed then they must be even more delusional than even I had suspected.

This is further proof of a clear-cut SJW feminist agenda. This small yet telling gesture is literally the producers letting the women know that "you are the one we really care about, we want YOU to succeed, so here's the map with which you can take the initiative; YOU decide which way you two will be heading first, try to be assertive from day 1, be bossy, we got your back, we want you to show you are not equal but BETTER than your male partner".

This is anyway the crux of modern feminism, to "prove" that women are "better" than men - in everything - not to "just" achieve equality. Which is hilarious, because they need extreme levels of manipulation, bias and cheating to get anywhere close to "achieving" this fictional equality (let alone superiority). Yet still they fail, because audiences aren't quite as dumb as the producers hope them to be. At least not all of them. Obviously, millennials and very young viewers are far more likely to take NAA at face value and believe in the show's feminist message than older generations who are more likely to "read between the lines"...

The 7th season - The Season of Feminism

A season notorious for its anti-male bias. The producers must have been at the peak of their essjaydoubleyou frenzy, because literally every episode was a "victory" for the "weaker gender". Compare this season to the early seasons when the show had actually been accused of chauvinism(!) by snowflakes - because it allegedly portrayed women as less capable than men.

Now, I don't recall the first season that well, but it must have had less "gender meddling" and manipulation than subsequent seasons. Certainly it is possible that early on the producers didn't try hard to take sides in the imaginary "gender war" (it's imaginary because only deluded leftists believe in it - and desperately strive to make it happen) but eventually made a very conscious decision to play the Feminist Card, especially after the unwarranted, laughable, initial criticism that the producers were biased against women.

It never occurred to these whiny snowflakes that the reason why women weren't doing as well in the early "challenges" may be rooted in nature and biology - two things that quasi-environmentalists i.e. these snowflakes know extremely little about, which is ironic because of their insistence that they worship nature! In fact, they latently hate nature and biology, because the two will never conform to their Utopian, Marxist ideals. Communism is about the belief that nature can be completely dominated and manipulated, that humans are superior creatures that can achieve anything. This goes in stark opposition to their supposed "pro-science" stance. There is nothing rational nor scientific at all in the attitude that nature and the cosmos can be conquered: these are pipe dreams for naive fools.

By introducing a feminist agenda, the producers would achieve several things: a) avoid being blamed for male success because there would be far more female domination, b) avoid being targeted by the powerful, rabid, fanatical liberal lobby - and this in turn c) ensured the show's long-term survival, because no corporation will fund a show that is accused of chauvinism.

With the SJW brigade off their backs - and on their side - the producers knew that they'd be a lot more likely to succeed, given how liberal-biased TV shows (whether scripted or not) get bigger and better advertising, more favourable reviews and wider media coverage. This is especially helpful for a show as controversial as this one.

Which is why the killing of animals is far more tolerated than it otherwise would have been...

Killing animals

Liberals are not only master manipulators but great big hypocrites who pick and choose their battles cynically, blatantly betraying their own ideals in the process.

Case in point, animal slaughter in NAA. The same PC Brigade that promotes feminism also has a lot of "animal rights" proponents among them. A show such as this should, logically, be heavily criticized by the Left then, especially by PETArds for butchering wild animals for ratings. Right?

Not so fast... Those PETArds are more interested in neo-Marxist ideology than they are in the well-being of animals, just as Greens are far more interested in bringing down capitalism than they are in protecting the environment. (Greens are nothing more than a communist movement hiding behind a deceptive veil of environmentalism. Their true agenda is 100% political i.e. Marxist.) As a result, animal rights campaigners are far less vocal about the show's mistreatment of animals than they normally would be, simply due to the show's decision to become pro-feminist. A typical double standard utilized by the Left.

This kind of double-standard can be found also, for example, in terms of how the Left tends to ignore the blatant sexism of a certain world-wide religion - just because that religion is under special protection by the Left.

The great feminist irony...

By exhibiting such great pro-female bias, and by trying to portray female contestants as better than they really are, the producers invariably achieve the OPPOSITE: they actually imply that women NEED their help, that they require the aid of cheating in order to "prove" their worth. This in turn means that the producers BELIEVE that women are weaker and less successful.

it's a lot like Affirmative Action being more racist than the KKK! If you consider a demographic group too weak and inept to fend for themselves, you are saying in no uncertain terms that you consider them incompetent hence inferior.

There are always great ironies to be found among "equality advocates", "pro-feminists", "anti-racists" - and the things they say and do. Which is why I've always believed that there is no bigger racist than a person who constantly advertises their alleged anti-racism. Or a man who advertises their "feminism". An overkill in virtue-signaling is indeed a form of open admittance of narcissism (and sometimes even sociopathy), and while virtue-signaling still seems to be working in convincing gullible people of the "good intentions" of the devious manipulators that use it, eventually the truth will come out and spread about virtue-signaling being a rather transparent manipulation device used by charlatans and liars.

Female aggression as a result of anti-male paranoia

In episode 1118 Danelle, an ex-Air Force worker with an enormous chip on her shoulder, became extremely agitated with her partner when he non-aggressively told her not to use a wrong type of wood for fire, which can emit poisonous fumes. Her uber-angry overreaction was like that of a pissy child caught doing something stupid, which is ironic because she told him "not to treat me like a child". She had already warned the audiences before the start that she doesn't like being "bossed around" - which is pretty hilarious coming from a person who'd spent 10 years in the military where obeying orders is the norm.

She later bitched and moaned like a little princess about every single thing, revealing huge amounts of insecurity about being a "stereotypical weak female". Later, she even exhibits jealousy about his hunting skills, feeling "useless" by comparison. But instead of realizing that her feeling this way is HER problem, she projects this anger at her own inabilities onto him, as if this were his fault somehow. Ungrateful that he caught a huge boar, she instead got even more resentful toward him. A textbook case of how extremist neo-feminism leads to unnecessary conflict. Men and women working against each other, competing.

This kind of behaviour has become increasingly common, and it's a direct result of extremely aggressive uber-feminism that is ravaging the western world in recent decades. Women feel increasingly entitled, they want to be treated as equals to men - yet many aren't prepared to pull their weight accordingly. There have been several such women in NAA, whereas I can't recall even one example of an outspoken chauvinist male.

These argumentative, easily explosive female participants build for themselves an imaginary enemy - man - and then they worsen the situation by pumping themselves up for possible confrontations before a challenge even starts. This way, they drastically increase the odds that they get engaged in a verbal fight with their male partner, because in a sense they can hardly wait to hear something that even REMOTELY sounds like a "chauvinist comment" so they can pounce on the man - which is what Danielle did. Some women on NAA have been very chill, unburdened by imaginary "gender wars", i.e. they were genuinely confident, but quite a few other ones really embarrassed themselves by showing weakness - not strength - by overplaying their Insecure Feminist Card.

Just one personal item? A blatant lie

Supposedly each participant can pick one item. Not quite true.

Several female participants had admitted that they were allowed to use tampons. To make things worse, tampons are NOT essential items, especially considering the fact that millions of women had existed and survived throughout the centuries WITHOUT any tampons - so why would these allegedly tough chicks need them?

Who knows what else the guinea-pigs are provided, things we are never informed about.

By revealing such a blatant pro-female bias, the show actually does a disservice to all the women that do achieve success without their help, without cheating. In that sense, NAA minimizes female achievement. (As much as we can even talk about achievement in the context of this ludicrous TV series.)