Talk:Nudity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Nudity in advertising

It's interesting that while there is an article on nudity in sports there is not currently one on nudity in advertising, although the link does redirect to sex in advertising. The two (nudity and sex) are not one in the same and should be looked at separately. During my travels in Europe, I've noticed that it is fairly common to see nudity in advertising media. Of particular note, I saw store ads in both Spain and the Czech Republic which features bare breasts and buttocks in non-sexualized advertisements. It would be interesting to cover this in a little more depth showing the contrasts between countries and cultures within this medium. --StuffOfInterest 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nudity in art today

I am wondering how to add information to this topic relating to art of the nude today. It seems that people are so sensitive and have so many conflicting agendas, that just telling people that there is a non-pornographic website devoted to the art of the nude where all visual artists can list their art and where the public can see art is a major deal here.

barebrush.com is a free website devoted to the art of the nude to help all visual artists who draw, paint, sculpt or video the nude today to get exposure for their work (pun intended). The website has a membership component, but that is to keep out spammers and pornographers. The website has some pay-for features, but these are nominal. The real purpose of the website is to increase the interest, appreciation and acceptance of the art of the nude. To help people find out that its OKAY to enjoy the art of the nude. To help people understand that enjoying the art of the nude does not automatically make a person a pervert.

barebrush.com includes a blog which reports on news and events relating to the art of the nude. There is a listing service (free) which allows all artists to post their art to the website (free) and to enter into a monthly contest in which a different art professional curates a virtual show.

The website started in September 2006. So far, we have had six curators: a dealer from Gramercy Park in NYC, the President of the Salmagundi Club, a collector and former museum president, two dealers from Chelsea and the curator for the February show is an artist who is very active with the International Dance Festival. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES. They all believed in the project enough to participate.

When I talk to Europeans they are incredulous as to the hang-ups the US has regarding the art of the nude. They think Americans are rather bizarre in their involvement with and denial of body parts.

Any advice on where an article or link might be welcome would be greatly appreciated. I thought that I could add an external link to this page, but it has been removed and I'm not sure what to do nextArt Lister 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In a word, nowhere. A website may be cited if it provides specific materials relative to creation of the article but external links should not be used as a "see also" sort of reference. If the links are not part of the citation process then they are considered spam and are likely to be removed. Please take a read of WP:EL for more information. Regarding the US vs Europe view of nudity, I fully agree. My countrymen have issues. --StuffOfInterest 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image clutter/gallery

I'd like to propose that most of the images in this article be moved to a separate gallery near the bottom of the page. I also think that 3 or 4 of the most relevant images should be left interspersed within the article. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this idea. Robotman1974 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As no objections to the above idea have been made, I've gone ahead with the changes. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed images

I've added the images of the naked mole rat and of the swimwear/mooning pic again. I think these inages are a very good way of conveying some of what the article describes at the point in which they're inserted. The mole rat image serves to illustrate the concept of "analogous nakedness" in the animal kingdom, and the image comparing the speedo with the mooners serves to illustrate an aspect of the way nudity is viewed in Western culture. If there are objections to including these images in the article, then those can be discussed here first in order for a consensus to be reached. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the example pic of the mole out, but I'm reverting to the version of the layout that doesn't look so messed up. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with the value of the mole rat image in terms of adding substantive value to the quality of the article, sorry.

As for the gallery, I know you announced and asked in advance, but I must have missed it. I don;t think that having a gallery of nude images is what the article is about. The previouis format where different images illustrated different section not only looked better, but was functionally more sensible. The logic step after moving a number of picture to a collective gallery is to delete the gallery as not essential to the article. Individual images that add to the quality of a section, or the article as a whole should be added to the content of the article to support vatious statements. If they are not needed to support various statements, then whether they are in a gallery, or in the body of the article, they don't need to be there. Atom 02:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the mole rat image is helpful as stated above, but it doesn't bother me a whole lot if it's not included. I do think that the images I moved to the gallery weren't really necessary to the article's content, so if the entire gallery gets some of those images get deleted I won't worry about that either. Even if some of those gallery images are moved back into the article it would be fine with me as long as it doesn't become cluttered and messy like it was before. I disagree that the previous layout looked better and that the placing of the images better suited the text. I think the opposite is true. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't step on any toes. I removed a very good image that had no licensing attached. With a little format and layout work was able to clean up article to put what I view as a few good images in. Deleted the gallery, as this is not a collection of images. Even if they are good images, no place for them means they don't belong in the article. Atom 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better now. My main issue was with the clutter, and that's no longer a problem. Thanks Atomaton. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed Image:SpencerTunick-Brugge2.jpg as it is a copyrighted image. Fair-use is limited to commentary, criticism or parody of the artist or the work. Use for display of the topic of the artwork for an article of that topic is a counterexample used in the policy for what is not fair-use. Correct fair-use would be in an article about Spencer Tunick, or perhaps a critique of the style of art. Atom 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I also found that Image:HorsesCM.jpg was a copyrighted image used outside of fair use, and removed it. Atom 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer plaques

I don't think the pioneer plaques should be there, It has nothing to do with nudity, It's is just the human body designes to educate extraterrestrials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.74.53 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm inclined to agree with this. It's an extremely poor representation of the subject in question and is surely only included because of possible issues with a photograph of full nudity of both sexes. TygerTyger 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes me too, this is just an anatomical illustration, nudity and the anatomical appearance of the human body are entirely unrelated. A photograph showing people in a state where nudity is occurring would make sense. Even just a full frontal anatomical illustration photograph would be equally irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.88.130 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Please delete the nude boys pics

Please delete those, it's sick, nasty and illegal. — French Bodybuilder 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they illegal? — Walloon 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at nude pics of young boys is illegal. Please don't tell me you're a pedifile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by French Bodybuilder (talk • contribs).

Yeah, I realize Wikipedia is uncensored and all, but having pictures of those boys, who are obviously underage, nude is unacceptable. I deleted it. We have plenty of pictures on this page to illustrate nudity already. 24.254.47.90 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Underage nudity? Are you kidding? Please point to Wikipedia policy concerning where nudity under a certain age is inappropriate. Not acceptable to you, fine, but do not censor without respectable justification. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but to my knowledge there is no law against simple nudity for minors. If the nudity was sexualized, then it certainly would be illegal but this image is about as far from it as you can get. If you can't cite specific regulation then don't try pushing your judgement onto others. --StuffOfInterest 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, British law on this subject is drawn very widely. You can even be arrested for possession of non-nude pictures of children if the photos are deemed 'provocative'.Blaise (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was the male sunbathing animated gif deleted?

The first complaint on this talk page is the underrepresentation of males on the article. Someone adds a beautifully relaxing looking animated gif image of a nude male sunbathing, and it gets deleted. Why ? 68.218.8.130 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I gave the reasons in the edit. Can you read? Please see User talk:88.144.39.84. The size of the image (1.44MB for the thumbnail) is simply too large and would take a long time to download for users on slower connections. The animation is unecessary anyway.88.144.39.84 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't read, however. I should have checked the dates. 88.144.39.84 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see the image go. My problem is not the subject but the presentation. Animated images only make sense when the animiation is for illustration purposes. When you have a still image with an animated background, then it is nothing more than a vanity art piece. Also, the image needs to support some point in the written text (not saying it didn't) or it is just more clutter for the article. If you look through the history, this article has had long problems with lots of excess images being added. At some point we may have to adopt a procedure on this article where all images are vetted on the talk page before addition to the article. --StuffOfInterest 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nakedness v. Nudity

Why is there only one page for Nakedness AND Nudity when much theory has gone into the different politics, philosophies and psychologies behind these states?

I point towards Kenneth Clark, John Berger, Gill Saunders and Edward Lucie Smith for a primer in these areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.88.130 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Nudity and nudism

These 2 articles can be merged? The other looks more professional than this article. Rubbing worth (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nudity and Nudism are different subjects, so merging them probably wouldn't be necessary. And if you feel the other is better written, why don't you try to improve this one?--C. ROSS 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just inserted summary section, which needs little more expansion.. This should be enough, and i agree that they are different from nudity, but they are closely related. Rubbing worth (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has ben a lot of vandalism lately. Maybe this article should be Semi-protected ? (By the way: my revisions have been made to get rid of vandalism only) - Prede (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Western culture?

Why is nudity divided along lines of Western culture and non-Western culture in this article? Many of the subjects currently under Western could be placed in the non-Western section. The treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Jewish attitudes towards nudity are arguably non-Western. Furthermore, it's more than evident that there is no uniform Western attitude to nudity. In America people freak out over a nipple, but in Sweden major political parties advertise with images of nude people in them.

Since nothing is served by drawing distinctions along Western and non-Western lines, just scrap the categorisation altogether, and instead give each region (Scandinavia, America, Arab, Sub-saharan African, etc) their own sections where it seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.86.230 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image housecleaning time again

Once again the article has become completely overloaded in images. A number have nothing to do with nudity (aka the "bare feet" and "leeloo" photos) and others appear to be mainly intended as pornographic (woman at computer). Throw on top of that two naked cycles photos. I think we need to drop at least a half dozen photos to make the article look more like an article again and less like a photo gallery. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. It looks utterly ridiculous. Go for it! Gillyweed (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the photos not being used to make a point or were additional ones of that type --Flyingember (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Children's pictures

I'm pretty sure you cannot take pictures of children and then post them onto here. Is it all right to have them on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Den5328954 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. There are legal restrictions on the depiction of children engaged in **sexualized** activities, especially **exploitative**. Those would be illegal in the US. Non-sexualized images of children are not illegal. If that was the case, every parent with pictures of their children would be potentially in trouble. Hope this helps. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs)

Funny you should mention that, because in the UK every parent with nude pictures of their children IS potentially in trouble, and not just in theory. A few years ago, TV newscaster Julia Somerville and her partner were questioned by police after taking pictures of her own children in the bath. (She took the 35 mm film to a drugstore for developing and they called the police.) No charges followed, but it was a distressing incident. Blaise (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Nudity

Please see portal discussion regarding a new WikiProject. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The only country to censor male nipples

I think the US should have a special part in this article, not in Western culture nor in non-Western culture, but a special part. Exposure of female nipples is considered criminal by many states (in the US), not in the other western countries (Europe). Altough, exposure of male nipples is now considered indecent in a state like Florida (see this article). This country has a very unique point of view about nudity. --Onesbrief (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the Orlando Sentinel article, the absence of male nipples on the billboard was not due to any law in force. Rather, it was a misunderstanding on the part of the designers, who were told not to make the billboard too provocative. I live in the United States, and I do not believe that exposed nipples of either sex should be considered indecent. --JHVipond (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Nudity and children

I am opposed to this merge. This article is already very long and Nudity and children is a controversial topic by itself that should be represented in Wikipedia. (In case you are wondering about my edit pattern, I have an account, but I edit anon for topics like this.) 76.183.208.186 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried several different positions for this recently-merged section but I can't find a place where it really belongs and doesn't seem to disrupt the flow of the article. Its current placement is just after the Terminology section, which I think is still rather strange and gives the topic undue weight. If anyone has any opinions on this please feel free to comment. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions?

(deleted -- this isn't how merges work. Simply insert whatever content is necessary from Nudity and children in its present location. When that's done, that article can be redirected. Do not blank or redirect before that, and there's no reason to copy it to this talk page. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted opinions

See this diff. This was a very POV edit. Backing up such opinions with authors who hold those opinions is still POV. Sources need to be objective and neutral. Welcoming any comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic slave nudity" stuff removed

I've removed the following unsubstantiated material from the article:

"Islamic Sharia'a (Law) defrentiate between Free women and Slave Women, where the awrah of the slave woman is only between her knees and navel."

The material was apparently first added in this edit, which (unless it can somehow be substantiated) appears to be pure vandalism. Please do not restore this material to the article, unless you can provide a cite to reliable sources that supports it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nude bathing in East Germany

Stale

 – -- Banjeboi 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section which claimed that nude bathing in East Germany is acceptable even outside of nudist areas. This is an urban myth which came into existance shortly after the German reunification. Back then East German tourism boards drastically reduced the number of nudist areas on the beaches because they feared that western tourists might be appalled. The local nudist population however did initially not accept or notice that what have been "their" nudist beaches for decades were suddenly not allowed for nude bathing anymore and that led to a temporary mixture of clothed and nude people lying on the same beach and some western tourists misinterpreted that view and assumed that it was common practice and acceptable in East Germany to be nude anywhere on the beach and spread the story back home. The legal situation is however very clear and the same all over Germany including the East: nude bathing is only allowed in signed nudist area

Judaism and male hair

"Under the laws of Tznius (modesty), both men and women cannot reveal the body parts considered to have sexual connotation (including upper arms, collarbones, legs, and — for married women and all men — hair, which is covered completely or partially)." This seems to say that men have to cover their hair because it has sexual connotation. Is that really why Jewish men wear hats? 142.68.133.227 (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nude man problem

If you'll take a look at hot Nudity_and_children#Nudity_and_sexuality where the subtopic dividing line cuts right through the photograph of the naked man. Can someone please try to fix this so it is more aesthetic through shuffling the photos around? Tyciol (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've boldly added auto archiving of threads stale for two months - the bot will leave at least five threads so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Geography

I'm trying to get a sense of where in the world various degrees of nudity are taboo. It would be nice to have a map showing where, e.g. full nudity in mass media is illegal, illegal but socially controversial, and not controversial. Another good benchmark might be where people of different sexes are allowed to mingle e.g. when bathing publicly - major crime, minor offense, legal but controversial, and normal. -- Beland (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tasteful Nudity?

Tasteful Nudity would be good for DeviantArt... and for athletic models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.247 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Image juggling

Various editors have been swapping images in and out of the article frequently as of late. Edit summaries such as (need more male examples) and (have enough female examples) are obviously subjective, since the actual count of naked males versus naked females depicted in the images shows far more males. Simple math shows 12 males to 9 females (and some are merely topless) before the last edit replaced a single female image with 6 more males in a shower. Now 18 males to 8 females in the images; one wonders exactly when an editor's opinion of "enough female, need more male" will be satiated.

Gender preference really shouldn't be part of the inclusion criteria. The images should be relevant to the associated text, and they should convey information. Some of the images in this article fall short, and this recent addition is an example. Neither the image of a single naked woman bathing nor the image of several men in a locker room shower directly relate to the topic of mixed-gender nude bathing, into which section they were inserted. These images, which do hardly more than illustrate that people are naked when they bathe, are not informative. An image depicting mixed-gender nude bathing, or conversely, mixed-gender non-nude bathing, would be more applicable for that subsection. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but question the fair use criteria of images of people, who, in the image, clearly don't want to be photographed in the nude. Maybe the appropriate general license agreement was made, but subjects of photography have a legal right to dictate how photos of them are used. The Abu Ghraib photos might be considered an exception to this, as long as the nude subjects have their identities kept private, and it is a widely known public domain image. 68.49.138.170 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But why do we need three festival related nudity photos, the other deleted photo displayed causal public nudity. 64.119.52.68 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite. The other replaced photo was from the Nambassa Festival, and the one you replaced was not a festival, but an annual biking event. I'm considering putting back the biking event image, since it was at least public, and more appropriate to the subsection. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But the other one is public too. I guess I should have said we have enough crowds of nude people. 207.118.248.45 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Biking through the streets of a city is public. Participating in a festival on a farm reserved for the event, far out in the countryside, really isn't. Just out of curiousity, how many images of "crowds" is enough? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two already, that's enough. 207.118.248.45 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I what does the burning man image depicts that the two others don't. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The same thing it has depicted the last 8 times you've removed it. I don't think Wikipedia is in danger of running out of pixels anytime soon, and there aren't "too many" images in the article at present; I also do not see it as redundant to another image in that article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:IMAGE states Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers. The burning man picture doesn't depict anything the other image doesn't. Why do we need two images on the some sub-section that depict the same thing? Also a straight up clear portrait of nude people is better than an old B&W photograph. This article is about nudity not just nudism. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Yes, the article is about nudity, and ALL of the images you have juggled in and out of the article properly represent aspects of the subject. You have not removed or swapped a single image because it was not appropriate for the article, but instead because there were "too many females; too many festivals; not enough males; redundant; diversify more; have enough females; this one not staged; need more males..." You are applying your own subjective opinion and personal taste here, which is fine, to a point. As the article stands now, the redundancy non-issue (they were very different images, nothing like 3 uniformed portraits of the same individual) is resolved, as is your complaint about B&W images. You'll note the guideline you quoted suggested the remedy for redundancy is to replace with different images, not toss images out. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Photos that are here. We could find better Smurai Cerberus☃ 13:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But I did replace them. I used a photo of a place where nudity is reserved for and a photo of festival/event-related nudity. The steaking photo is mean to present nudity that is meant to be provocative has it is in a normal public setting where nudity is not allowed. Again you have not explained why we should have three festival/event nude photos. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And again, you have not explained why we should not. There is nothing redundant about the present images. But I shall remove one of the festival/event images to address your concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did explain why they are redundant and pointed to wiki's policies. I gave a full explanation on how the new images contribute to the article. 66.112.105.138 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You pointed to a Wikipedia guideline, but did not explain why any of the images were redundant. Claiming too many male pictures, or too many festival pictures, or too many black and white pictures doesn't justify your deletions. I also never said the beach picture was offending. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberia

I can't tell how much of this section is vandalism or not. If it's not, then it's definitely not NPOV. Somebody knowledgeable should look at this. 98.206.136.121 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

650,000 year old origin of clothing

The article states:

"Based on scientific research into lice it is estimated that humans have been wearing clothing for 650,000 years."

The citation link provided is not freely accessible, but the this article appears to have the same title and author, and does not support this claim; if anything, this particular article is challenging the claim of a half-million-plus year-old origin of clothing. Nowhere in the text does "650,000" appear to show up; the closest is 500,000. In addition, most of the facts appear to be speculation (albeit from knowledgeable people). I'm going to pull the sentence, since it isn't really core to the article and the support for the date seems to be pretty sketchy.

Mark7-2 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Birthday suit and other terms

I see that birthday suit currently redirects to this article, yet the term itself never appears in the article. This violates the general Wikipedian principle of least astonishment, in that someone looking for the term (i.e., who really doesn't know what it means) won't learn anything about its specific meaning and use. ("It has something to do with nudity, but…".) Of course, there must be a huge number of similar redirects here for such terms. While the actual meaning and use can be left to Wiktionary (e.g., see wikt:birthday suit), we must still provide a connection between the term entered in the Search box and the actual location of the information.

I'd like to know how regular readers and editors of this article feel about adding these terms to the "Terminology" section, perhaps in a multi-column list (maybe even rendered in a smaller font) that gives a very terse (5 words or less where possible) definition and a link to the Wiktionary entry. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. From WP:ASTONISH: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." I think that's the case here. Powers ^T 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense if you already know what "birthday suit" means. But then why are you looking for "birthday suit"? It's up to the writers to explain why something makes sense, not for the readers to guess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think we need to put text in that doesn't belong just because we have a redirect in place. If you can find a natural place for it in the text, fine, but I'm afraid an annotated list would just look out of place. Powers ^T 13:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a common theme among many redirects. I've fixed some of them already. Usually articles get nominated for deletion and end in a merge then they gradually disappear. I see this as a way to disregard decisions made. I remember this particular one and other terms being in the article. By all means Jeff Q if you can find the proper section or make one for it then you're welcome to add it. I don't see any problem that it doesn't belong in the article. Biofase (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked vs. Nude

"Naked" redirects here...

It shouldn't. Robert Graves said it best,

For me, the naked and the nude

(By lexicographers construed

As synonyms that should express

The same deficiency of dress

Or shelter) stand as wide apart

As love from lies, or truth from art.

The two words mean almost entirely different things. To be naked is (1) to be in one's natural state, or (2) to be defenseless. To be nude is to be deficient of clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.15.52 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

please show us a picture of a naked man or lady, alongside a picture of a nude man or lady, and explain why either term can not apply to the other photo.--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked can apply to many things (living and non living). Nude is a human state exclusively. Biofase ^flame| stalk  17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you can write an encyclopedic article on nakedness that doesn't just duplicate the information here, by all means do so. The redirect is there for the writing. Powers ^T 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Indecent exposure" in England

I've slapped my first ever [citation needed] on the claim that English law forbids "indecent exposure". To the best of my knowledge there is no such offence any more. Most statute law relevant to the subject was repealed and replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This act does define an offence of "exposure", but sensibly drops the "indecent" part to forestall argument over what exactly is supposed to be indecent about the natural human body. The offence of exposure is intended to be used against "flashers", and while I haven't re-read the statute just now I believe I'm right in saying that it requires the intent to cause alarm or distress. The "intent" part is significant - even if an unusually prudish person comes along and is distressed, if the naked person didn't intend them to be then this particular offence has not been committed. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chances are your interpretation is correct, and the article is out of date. Please feel free to make whatever revisions are necessary. Powers ^T 13:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of pictures

I noted that this article seems to have a picture, or even multiple, every few lines. Considering that the Manual of Style suggests using not that many pictures, would the editors who run the article like to cut down on the overuse of pictures? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's borderline at best. This article needs some clean-up first then aligning images to match text would be more appropriate. -- Banjeboi 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any such suggestion in the Manual of Style. In fact, I daresay the encyclopedia would be vastly improved if all topics had as many free-use images as this one does. Powers ^T 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's incorrect to state that this article not only has a higher ratio of pictures than average, but especially so considering the content and the benefit that they bring. Seems just like a bit too much sensationalism for me, which is fine so long as it isn't just for that sake alone like that appears to be. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what benefit are we talking about? With a few exceptions (say, [1][2][3][4]) for contrasting different contexts and uses, most of these images are just gratuitous. That is, it's gratuitous nudity--and thus somewhat pornographic. NotARusski (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Each picture illustrates nudity in a different context or of a different sort. The lead image is an excellent generic example. The next image illustrates streaking. The next shows public nudity. The next shows a nude beach. The next is a depiction of child nudity in an innocent context. The next shows nudity in advertising. The next shows toplessness as a subtype of nudity. The next shows skinny dipping. The next shows nudity while bathing (probably the least useful of the images). The next shows nudity in a tribal culture. The next shows Adam and Eve. The next shows Abu Grahib. And the last shows ritual nudity. None of them are redundant; they all illustrate different aspects of nudity and make for an extraordinarily well-illustrated article. Powers ^T 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bit about Japan in the Segregation paragraph. In Japan open urinals, common (non-segregated) toilets containing urinals and common (non segregated) bathing exists and is acceptable. Also in public baths there are few (open) shower stalls and a main "bath-room" where nudity is the norm. There are also (mostly in the country-side) many non-segregated (mixed) baths (onsens) where also nudity is the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.184.68 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's out right PORN!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.255.21 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there seems to be an excessive amount of pictures, however I don't particularly have a problem with it. Remingtonhill1 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Asia

"In Asian cultures such as Korea and Japan the public bath is very common. Bathing nude with family members or friends of the same and opposite sex in public bath houses, saunas, or even natural hot springs is popular." - this requires references ... The article on Japanese hot springs, e.g., says this is uncommon nowadays ... --JensMueller (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

new lead

I replaced the lead photo with one that is straightfoward and more generic. I'm moved the previous one down below and used it to replace the German beach photo because you could see the cameraman's clothing and finger in it. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous lead photo (the group shot) is much better. While your choice is indeed "generic", it's aesthetically much less pleasing. And I'm not talking about the individuals' attractiveness. The two figures are posed completely differently with completely different lighting and quality. It looks artificial and poorly assembled. The group shot, on the other hand, while admittedly less clinical, is more representative of day-to-day nudity and displays an array of individuals instead of just two. Powers ^T 15:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Generic or not (and I think not) those two disparate figures pasted together do not hang together as an encyclopedia-quality image. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine but I'm still replacing the other beach photo with one without the cameraman's finger and clothing and the PETA one with one that rests more firmly in the section. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That "finger" that you mention in the photo is someones' leg - look closer. Dinkytown (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Not in the lead, but part of all this-- I just changed the English translation of the PETA picture, making it more compact and idiomatic. In the brand of English I grew up speaking, it would be "Mitts off the bunnies!" but I don't know how widely that will be understood. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why we changed the PETA ad from one in English to one not in English. Powers ^T 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because it rests more firmly in the section. 174.124.163.224 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bei mir that works, and yet... I like what it does for the layout at varying window widths, but the German text is slightly dissonant, a bit janglesome alongside the rest of the English article. I don't consider it broken enough to need fixing either way. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what "rests more firmly" means, at least not in this context. Powers ^T 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous vertical-format image spilled over into the next section(s) when viewed in a wide window at smallish text size, is how I read that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its more to do with how his browser views it than anything else. Change it back to the English version. Dinkytown (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. The current image also "spills over" on my screen. I don't see the problem. Powers ^T 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What "problem" there was has now been solved. If anyone disagrees, they can change it - otherwise, this is asinine... Dinkytown (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)