I’ll never understand the logic behind artsy nude photos. I’m not talking pornographic photos where the girl is flashing her privates for the world to see. I mean the classier photos, often found in magazines, that you might find of celebrities or high-end models. The pictures showcase their figure and sexuality with soft tones as well as suggestive posing. Often the artsy photos are beautiful and tasteful. But they are not fully naked, they are nude, there’s a difference. Apparently.
Here’s the part that baffles me – they can show everything, literally everything, as long as they cover the nipples and crotch. And therein lies the difference. Naked equals full frontal. Nude equals full frontal plus pasties or hand/prop placement over the naughty parts of the body. Why is the nipple the culprit? I don’t understand how that makes the photo more appropriate. After all, we don’t hide man nipples from the public eye.
Is it to protect young innocent eyes? Cause I’m fairly certain that just seeing a naked figure is equally as effective as seeing a nipple. I doubt anyone is completely turned off by a woman until she shows her nipples and crotch, and then suddenly – BAM! – she’s sexy as Hell. Human’s aren’t robots, we don’t work that way. The imagination is a powerful tool.
Obviously I’m not an art expert, but I do find the modesty in nude photos ridiculous.