Not very Christmassy but still...

Could not resist discussing this. I recently had a conversation with a male friend of mine (best he remain anonymous) who made a very interesting point about female and male nudity in film and television. He argues women are rarely naked on the screen because you never actually see their vagina. All that is exposed (aside from breasts and butt) is well, bush. He contends that the pubic hair is not their vagina. For men however, should their lower body be exposed there would be no mistaking the penis in full view. Their parts are not "hidden" and so are less often "nude" in film. This separation of pubic hair and body parts is interesting. I never considered it. Could it be? In consideration, there is no sensation in the lower abdomen area. Seeing pubic hair has no real enticement ( to those without a fetish) At the edge of the area begins the vagina but that is quickly swept between the legs where it can be protected in a sense hidden. It is even hidden from some women in many cases, imagine your most sexual, pleasurable body part hidden even from yourself! So the questions are: are men shown less in the buff because you can see their body part without trimmers? Are pubic hair part in parcel of the vagina? Do you have the same reactions if someone saw your bush as you would if they saw between your legs? I haven't concluded..practically it makes sense. The goods are a bit further down but ...are we drawing lines in the sand here? A naked woman is still naked even if you can't see her who-ha. If that is so then are men really stimulated by a naked woman or just the edited version of her without full frontal exposure? Are we back to the ideal again? The woman without her womanhood? Ignoring the power beneath the foliage?

Some of the greatest humanitarian discoveries can be found right under our noses. To find the real will of people you need only to ask around. We have created a social world, one that allows us to interact with each other everyday and most days this gives us only frustration. But if you take the time to know the woman in front of you in line or the man who opened the door for you, you may just be surprised at how much you have in common. This is not in reference to the things you or they may have. I am talking about the real humanness that is within us all. And what I learned today is what a great country to live in where we can share that humanness, that struggle together.
Feminist, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Democrat, Mexican, are titles not lives. These are the identities we must break away from. Because in this country we know struggle but we also know life, a good life. There are places, people, homes, jobs, and the like for those who are hungry. There is life in the hunger and life in the giving. Ultimately we can each give, we live in a country where you can help. The option to do so is the good life. There are people in many other places who can not help one another. They bear witness to the deaths of life. They must watch others become sick, killed, starved, raped, abused without the choice. It can come down to food or work. Many who without either will simply die. Here, in this great country, we have the choice because we have created the means. We can care about one another, we can help. We can make that choice to act. A person's complacency with their life is not a judgment to use against them. We all know complacency. Help whenever and where ever you can because in this country we are fortunate enough to be able to do so. Merry Christmas