[Flint]

It's nowhere near that complicated, Bruce. I simply think that opposition to nude art is probably based on an a person's attempt to adhere to the confused teachings of their religious institution (IE, sex is bad, the human body is dirty). That, I base on two points: #1 this is the teaching of these institutions (is it not?) and #2 I can't think of any other possible reason for someone to be opposed to nude art. You cite "social mores and religious teaching" as if they exist in a vacuum. I "can't see the difference"? Maybe you "cant see" the connection. I think it's obvious that "social mores and religious teaching" are closely intertwined, so closely intertwined that if ""social mores" caused an opposition to nude art, I would simply point out that if "religious teaching" was the basis for these "social mores" then, would you not say that religion was the initiator? This appears to be self-evident, to me.

This analysis doesn't require me to be "hung up" on religion. I do frequently observe the workings of religion in society, and take an interest in them. This doesn't require me to put forth much of an effort, considering how predominant religion is in all aspects of our lives. How could I miss seeing it's influence? This too appears to be self-evident, to me.

I'm not interested in your aggressive "challenge to prove my manhood" or whatever it is. I will simply keep speaking the truth as I see it, and you are free to offer rebuttal on any tangible point. I won't "defend myself" against character attacks.