No, I didn't expect to read such an argument, let alone today & I applaud its refreshing honesty and questioning of one of the contradictions that exist in the attitude of some feminists.

At the same time, although I accept what the author says as being the reality, I remain bewildered about the rationality of the preoccupation of so many in our society with nudism and the exposure of breast nipples.

To the best of my knowledge, baring some unfortunate deformity or abnormality, the components of human bodies are universal in position, function and placement.

It would, I think, be difficult if not impossible to find an adult that couldn't describe the basic attributes & appearance of the female and of the male human body, at least from an external viewpoint.

So, why do we hide nipples or for that matter genitalia? Yes, if an individual is uncomfortable to display any part of their body in public, (or private), then that ought to be their choice to make.

However, whilst current laws and attitudes allow what are likely to be the choices of prudes orthe pretentious who act as though the most fundamental of our organs don't exist, ( even, so often, when they clearly put the to use very often in a sexual way and if functioning without illness or magic, must certainly use them for normal universal bodily maintenance.

So, what is the big deal about these aspects of our bodies? Why the fuss and censorship.? It also puzzles me that those very people who are most likely to censor, seem not to understand that the mystery of what is hidden is far more likely to arouse than what is laid bare, warts and all. - 'Provocative' clothing can not be so if clothing is absent.

The reality is that most skimpy, tight, shape hugging or organ focused clothing is far more likely to arouse undesirable desire and undesirable outcomes, than is the plain human body displayed au naturel.