What Should a Naturist Call "Those Parts" Anyway

[Bare_Truth]

At the http://naturist-christians.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=390&t=15466 the 9th and 10th post down the page there were comments about the oxymoronic nature of a naturist referring to his/her "Private Parts" since when socially naked such a one does not have any parts that are all that much more private than any others seeing as how they all are exposed.

So then what better name could one have for the parts that textiles strive so hard to keep covered, (whether they be their own or those of others ).

I suppose we could use the term "banned parts" because most of society seems to see it that way, but then God does not ban them nor would I care to call them that, as to do so is to call good evil and evil good,(Ref Isa 5:20).

"Wobbly Bits" has some validity but they are not always so as various of them may be firm, and dangling bits does not work all that well for the same reason, and implies feebleness.

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

It is rare to find a person who does not strongly value such parts. It has been the prudishness of the world that has led to us hiding these parts and making up euphemistic terms that seem to belittle them and attach shame to them, or at the other extreme crudely brag upon them for irrelevant reasons (e.g. excessive size or prowess of performance). Actually using the words of a dead language (Latin) to refer to them does not really help either.

"Gender Parts" might be a useful term, more so than say "Genitals", as for instance "breasts" and the "anus", are consider private parts and they have no function that is "Generative" per se (i.e. capable of generating a new life) albeit that the lactating breasts to promote young life.

Coming up with a term that is not a prudish euphemism or distant technical Latin is not easy.

"Gender Parts" pretty much works for me, but some may object that it excludes the anus which is pretty much lumped among the concept of private parts based on the use that some put it to. However some states seem to now have laws that define the"gluteal cleft" as a private part so that bikinis would technically be regarded as exposing a private part, and then of course there is the matter of the classic "Plumber's Crack"

I suppose that we might seek some expert linguistic help on this one ........(e.g. Petros/Celcius)

[Jim]

Much of the English language is from Latin. Why worry about using the proper words because of that? Penis, vulva, and anus are fine words. Just don't misuse "vagina" to mean what's externally visible; it's internal. If the point being made is society's response, then go be creative: "those organs gymnophobes fear" and such.

[Petros]

The problem is not the individual organs and areas. There we can either, with a sigh, use Latin or Greek [penis versus phallus - yes, that is Latinized Greek] or try to redeem Germanic or Old Romance terms long classed as vulgar but still used by the vulgus.

The difficulty is finding a cover term [pun intended]. Genitals as pointed out omits the anus and mammaries; "gender parts" still leaves anus and pubic hair out. What they have in common is that they are areas which a subset of common Euro-American culture asks us to hide. Which makes Private Parts good.

The Naturist culture does not have Private Parts as a category. Do we as naturists need to discuss them as a unit, other than to say they are parts the surrounding culture rates R or PG?

[JimShedd112]

I say use the scientific/medical terms - penis, breast, vagina, anus, etc. If they're good enough for those uses then why not everyday language too?

Jim

[Petros]

I might add - some cultures have a system that accelerates word banning and replacement. It is not enough to rename the privy and the privates. If a chef dies - let us say Chief Big Bear - his name may no longer be used as a common word. A replacement for the word "bear" must be found. In others, if a woman has a husband named John, she and her children have to find another way to talk about the toilet - a eupemism replacing a euphemism that replaced a euphemism.

For me one more reason to call a spade a bloody shovel.

[Petros]

I am reminded: in one of my languages there is an importanmt sound law that affectsa certain set of consonants. They have nothing, no feature uniting them and distinguishing them from others - except they trigger the sound shift. At one point in the past, the rulde made sense - but you can only get it to work by fudging it. LONG ago, I asked one of the gurus [that proved how long ago it was, I long ago quit asking gurus non of whom knew what I know] how it ought to be handled.

He said, you just give them the feature, triggers rule x.

The list of 21st century EuroAmerican privates makes no sense - they are just the parts ro which the rule applies.

[webmeister]

gentile genital

[Maverick]

This is slightly more on-topic than off-topic. I found out by coincidence a few weeks ago that the German word for "pubic hair" is Schamhaar, the prefix of which is Scham- which is related to our word for "shame." So it is roughly, literally "shame hair." As far as I know there's no real explanation for why Scham- got that meaning (if you look up the prefix it would translate as "pubic" or "pudendal") from shame.

Also, the word Scham, which does mean "shame," can be used as a euphemism for private parts.

Maybe Petros could shed some light on this too.

[Ramblinman]

At the http://naturist-christians.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=390&t=15466 the 9th and 10th post down the page there were comments about the oxymoronic nature of a naturist referring to his/her "Private Parts" since when socially naked such a one does not have any parts that are all that much more private than any others seeing as how they all are exposed.

I would disagree with the suggestion that something that is private, must, by definition, remain unseen.
Private property is often in plain view and it is not forbidden to observe what may be seen from the road or adjoining property.
It is merely forbidden to walk about, to trespass onto that property.

[Petros]

Re Scham: while i have not made any big time study, I should say the German usage is likely imported from pudenda. Which of course reflects one particular attitude to the parts not to be displayed.

Note that shame at the time of the term's origins need not mean what we take it to mean. In some languages "shame" refers not to embarassment and hot blushed so much as it does to the modest and culturally appropriate behaviors that keep you from needing to be ashamed.

Thus the practice of NOT mentioning the word that matches the husband or the deceased is called [hyperliterally] "being ahamed" - that is, speaking according to convention and thus avoiding embarrassment.

[Petros]

I would disagree with the suggestion that something that is private, must, by definition, remain unseen.

Again, consider not the contemporary meaning of private, but the range at the time "private parts" was coined. Even today "I am a private person" and "I am a private citizen" are VERY different uses of private.

The use in private parts is NOT that of private property, but that of privy. They are private in that they must not be public.

That is my personal opinion; nothing personal.

[Bare_Truth]

It occurs to me that we could come up with some acronyms. For instance we could use a bit of alliteration and call them "PPP" which would stand for "Parts Prohibited by Prudes"

[Ramblinman]

I would disagree with the suggestion that something that is private, must, by definition, remain unseen.

Again, consider not the contemporary meaning of private, but the range at the time "private parts" was coined. Even today "I am a private person" and "I am a private citizen" are VERY different uses of private.

The use in private parts is NOT that of private property, but that of privy. They are private in that they must not be public.

That is my personal opinion; nothing personal.

Have their been times when you offer an opinion that was not yours, but worthy of discussion?
I have...

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." Deuteronomy 25:11-12

These two verses provide much information to grapple with, but let's exercise enough discipline to focus on the word "secrets" as translated by King James' theologians.
The fact that testicles are described as "secrets"...
Possibility A: May reflect the culture of King James England (at least among theologians),
(After all, Moses was not fluent in English, not even Old English, much less early modern English of the KJV).
Possibility B: May reflect Hebrew culture regarding the secret nature of genitals.
Possibility C: The chance that God himself regarded genitals as something that must be kept in secret (out of sight).

I have some opinions on this matter, but will open the floor to discussion first...

[JimShedd112]

Personally, I suspect it can be placed on the KNV theologians and culture of the time.

Jim

[Petros]

I not infrequently present and prodce supporting evidence for an opinion not mine own.

Be that as it may, regarding Deuteronomy 25:

Septuagint she grabs him by "the twins" - now what could that refer to?

Hebrew uses a word from the root for "shame", so best translated "pudenda"

Syriac uses a word for "bosom" expanded t cover genitals in general.

KJV is just making the best of a bad situation.

Note that "secret" just means here "hidden away." If she is grabbing at the groin of a tunic wearing man it is hardly a secret in our normal sense what is there.