From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Nudist TV segment
Date: 11 Jan 1993 10:28:10 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <C0JL49.9BJ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  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.

If "one does occassionally see male frontal nudity" then how can there
possibly be a "Prohibition"????   Either you *can* show it or you *can't*.
(I appologize in advance if I'm taking these words too "literally" for
you!   No...actually, I don't.  "prohibition" is pretty specific in it's
meaning.  If it isn't meant literally, it shouldn't be used litterally.)

me>Excuse me?????  "Pubic hair" on my face????  I think not!  "Pubic" means
me>of or relating to the pubis (the bone structure in the vicinity of the 
me>genetals) *not* of or relating to puberty.  Check out your dictionary.

>   (This guy must be a computer programmer, to be so literal-minded)

Irrelevant.  

>   Note the qoutes around the term "pubic hair" in my comments.   The
>   point, as I'm sure the average reader could comprehend, is that 

I noted them.  I understood what you meant.  But your statement *and*
your implication are *both* wrong.

>   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

Personally, I agree that pubic hair and facial hair are equally nauty.
But to say that this is true in the eyes of the general public, the TV
stations, etc., is *absurd*.  If this were actually true, naked women
would be shown on all the soaps, on all the beer commercials, ....
They already show mens beards, so if there is truly no differnce between
a beard and pubic hair, then this should be no big deal, right?  WRONG!

Thus, your statement is wrong even if I interpret your words non-literally.
It's just plain wrong.

>   genitals.   On a man gentials ARE dispolayed in "full frontal nudity"
>   which makes a comparison to the female case one of apples and oranges.

Perhaps, but comparing "full frontal female nudity" to "full-facial male
nudity" is like comparing apples to elephants.

>>                          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

Where did you get the idea that nudism "defines itself in terms
of...genitals"?  Nudism is about being without clothes, not about showing
off one's genitals.  CO means "clothes-optional", not "genital covering
optional".  But since people already accept the sight of *most* of the
body and are comfortable revealling *most* of their own bodies, the
exposure of the genitals (and female breasts, too) is the only thing
that is *unique* on a CO beach. As you almost had right in your next 
paragraph: "clothing required" is defined as requiring that the genitals
(and breasts) be covered, "clothing optional" and "nudism" make no such
assumptions---*all* clothing is optional.

Put it this way: a beach which *requires* every person to wear a shirt is
*not* nudist or clothing-optional...*even if* it permits the exposure of
the genitals!  Would such a beach ever exist?   Of course not.

>    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.

Yes and no.  There *is* a fascination or focus on sexual matters, but it
is from non-nudists, prospective nudists, and (perhaps) newcomers, not
from the long-time nudists.  The rules against single males are an
attempt to combat the (very real) insecurities of prospective females (and
some males who also don't like having an imbalance).

BTW, most clubs that disallow single men also disallow single women.  Others
try to maintain a target ratio (e.g., 1:1, 2:1, ...) between the men and the
women.  *Many* clubs have no such restrictions.

Cheers. Bill.  (sorry for the length)

PS: Peter, if you'd like to argue more semantics, lets do it by email.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca