I was in a debate recently that, to cut a long story short, involved my interlocutor declaring that it is important to monitor the religious affiliations of employees in a workplace, any workplace, because some people don't like nudity on the TV - I sneered, because TV content is irrelevant to workplaces, and I like nakedness.
I thought further and realised that what I share with Religious People is a dislike of inappropriate pornography. I don't like porn that is exploitative, either in the way that it exploits the subject or the way that it is used cynically to market yet more unnecessary consumer goods. Most specifically I detest the sort of porn that exists to put women down, that perpetuates a culture that women are second-class citizens, to satisfy the whims and desires of men, but have no intrinsic merit themselves. I think in this respect I differ from the Religious Nutters, who are, in practice, no different from the pornographers.
I generally dislike inappropriate or potentially offensive content on TV programmes without due warning, and I respect The Watershed. But I regard nudity in itself as a neutral matter. It can be part of a documentary process, or dramatically logical or aesthetically pleasing. I don't regard it as something that children shouldn't see, especially considering that there are truly offensive things on TV, marketed as 'family-oriented' ie for children. I suspect that most of the 'offence' caused by nakedness is actually embarrassment. There are numerous contexts in which I would be embarrassed by nakedness, but I just can't get my head round the 'offensive' bit. I find rampant consumerism to be far more 'offensive' than bare bodies.
I would be curious to know my readers' views on portrayal of nakedness on the internet, specifically on sites that you often read, might have bookmarked or listed in a feed reader. A blog, for example...
I have a feeling that there is a ranking of acceptability in terms of naked pictures appearing on such a site.
- For them to be suitably forewarned and guarded eg as pop-ups with no thumbnails, or requiring a click on 'continue reading'
- Stylised, so it seems less like a photo and more like an artistic creation, either because of the pose, or the use of shadows, or an artificial hue
- For them to be only hinted nakedness eg obviously topless but no nipples
- Half-dressed, so as to appear to be aiming deliberately at erotica
- Clearly aiming at being provocative
- Full frontal above the waist
- Full frontal casual non-provocative
- Amateur pornstar
Without entering into a debate about the finer details of the ranking (eg switch 5 with 6), I would be curious to know where readers would draw the line. I suspect most people would draw it higher for themselves than for others. And would there be a difference if to see required passworded entry?
Anonymous comments are fine; it would be interesting to know (if I don't already) if the commenter is male or female, perhaps whether straight or gay. Although, I would far rather know the opinions of return readers than pervy googlers!
And as an afterthought, does it make a difference whether the model has the perfect body with skin blemishes and flesh creases all airbrushed out, is young, I was going to say is the 'typical model' but I don't suppose anyone wants to look at pictures of bones loosely wrapped in dessicated skin. Or would it be more valid if there were pictures of ordinary people with the normal range of physical imperfections?
