From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:45:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1ieam4INN5q8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.134111.21465@icd.teradyne.com> yaffe@icd.teradyne.com writes:
>>In article LGA@apollo.hp.com, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes, in reference
>>>  The flaw in her reasoning (and yours) is simple:  The prohibition is
>>>  against showing *genitals* onscreen.   When you see female "full frontal
>>>  nudity" on HBO, say, all you're seeing is pubic hair.  Nature has 
>
>Please do share the source of your information.   I know of no "prohibition"
>against showing a penis in an R-rated movie, but it doesn't occur very
>often!

  I'm talking about the prohibition that she's referring to.  *As I said*, 
  one does _occasionally* see male frontal nudity on TV.  

  I'm not interested in meaningless semantic differences; my point is
  simply that there's no double standard -- men's genitals are not
  displayed less frequently than those of women.


>>>  arranged for the female external genitalia to be modestly hidden by
>>>  her pubic hair.  Thus "full frontal nudity" on most women is about as
>>>  revealing as a beard (also a kind of "pubic hair") on a man.  But males
>>>  enjoy no such modesty when it comes to genitals.  
>
>Excuse me?????  "Pubic hair" on my face????  I think not!  "Pubic" means
>of or relating to the pubis (the bone structure in the vicinity of the 
>genetals) *not* of or relating to puberty.  Check out your dictionary.

   (This guy must be a computer programmer, to be so literal-minded)
   Note the qoutes around the term "pubic hair" in my comments.   The
   point, as I'm sure the average reader could comprehend, is that 
   a display of pubic hair is about as naughty, revealing, or sexually
   significant as a display of beard hair.  It is not a display of
   genitals.   On a man gentials ARE dispolayed in "full frontal nudity"
   which makes a comparison to the female case one of apples and oranges.

   (BTW, has the original poster who complained about the double standard
    disappeared back into the wordwork?)


>                          Nudism is about accepting the body---the
>*entire* body---as it is.  Excluding the genitals is *not* what nudism
>is about. 

    Then why does nudism/naturism define itself in terms of exposing 
    the regions of the body associated with genitals?  The only distinction
    between a nude beach and a textile beach is that those specific
    regions are revealed on the CO beach*.   Moreover, many nudist clubs
    and organizations have rules against single males attending their
    facilities and events.   This also suggests a fascination with or
    focus on sexual matters.

                                         
 *  The obvious answer is that this definition is set by the textile
    beach's preoccupation with _covering up_ those specific regions.
    But all that explains is who's setting the definitions.   It
    doesn't change the fact of the definition -- nudity is defined
    in terms of the display of those parts of the body associated
    mainly with reproduction.   A man who walks around with a bare
    chest is not considered "nude" -- a man who walks around with a 
    bare penis is.
                  

---peter