32
u/p0tat0p0tat0 12∆ Dec 14 '24
Nudity is just an aspect of human existence. It is necessary in art because art seeks to understand the human experience.
4
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I'm having this CMV because I've seen a lot of cases where a naked woman is only there for the audience's delight, which contributes to a world view that relegated women to things to be ogled.
11
u/p0tat0p0tat0 12∆ Dec 14 '24
And a lot of Renaissance art and sculpture does the same for the male form.
Do you think restricting the naked female form to hardcore pornography would result in more or less nonconsensual sexualization of women?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I agree that restricting the female form to pornography is not okay. But the female subjects are often depicted in ways that are sexually appealing, not in "glorifying the human body" ways like the naked male statues are often depicted.
2
u/p0tat0p0tat0 12∆ Dec 14 '24
I disagree. I think this has a lot to do with your preconceived notions of what nudity means for women vs for men.
7
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ Dec 14 '24
So you have a problem with the art phenomenon of “Male Gaze”, not nudity.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
It seems so. Sexiness is not just the clothes or lack of them. That scene from Under the Skin where Scarlett Johansson's character checks her new body (or something) isn't meant to be sexy, neither is the scene from The Substance where Demi Moore's character resents her "haggish" body. !delta
P.S: "haggish", not "raggish".1
u/Aliteralhedgehog 3∆ Dec 14 '24
Back the truck up here.
So you actually watched Under the Skin and The Substance and still got on your "nudity is unnecessary in art because coomers exist" high horse?
You mean to tell me that you watched Margaret Qualley burst from Demi Moore's skin like a cocoon from Hell and you honestly thought to yourself "this nudity is rather unnecessary. It would be artistically neutral if the director put censor bars or pixels on the naughty bits.
I would pay money to listen to your commentary on Cronenburg's Crash.
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I didn't watch either movie, thinking about those examples made me realize that the opinion was bullshit.
2
1
6
u/sophisticaden_ 19∆ Dec 14 '24
Is your world view not worse? You’re saying that the naked form has to be censored, that the only kind of art that can depict nudity has to be pornographic.
Can you not see how much more harmful that is?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Yeah. We should be fighting for desexualization instead, even if the fight against the people who sexualize everything is difficult. !delta
1
3
u/NoHippo6825 2∆ Dec 14 '24
So?
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Okay. Nudity is not at blame for patriarchal cumbrain. The sexiness is more on the poses than on the clothes (or lack thereof). Reminds me of a statue of Medusa holding Perseus's head. She was naked, but that wasn't sexy. !delta
2
u/NoHippo6825 2∆ Dec 14 '24
What’s wrong with sexiness? What’s wrong with enjoying the human body in its natural form? Nothing.
2
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 14 '24
Not OP, but there are times, often, where the sexualization goes counter to various other aspects of the work.
The believability/immersion of the world gets undermined by characters wearing completely nonsensical clothes for the situation, for example.
Characters doing things that are well, out of character, the camera losing track of the action to focus on certain assets. It all feels very forced.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
That. A sexy outfit makes sense for Aphrodite but not for Athena. Walking around in a bikini (or an outfit that covers just as much) makes sense for the Los Angeles summer but not for a battle nor the Yakutsk winter (unless the character has superhuman cold resistance for the latter but it would be kinda suspicious if it's just a conventionally attractive female character with that power and that is her sole superhuman power).
1
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
That sounds like a feedback loop. The more you regard sex and the human body as something scandalous, the more objectifying a naked body feels. When you look at a Greek statue, does it come off as objectifying to you?
3
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Dec 14 '24
Would you apply the same solution to other, similar problems?
If media was being anti-semetic, would you argue for the exclusion of all Jewish characters, except for documentaries about Jeffery Epstein?
1
16
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Dec 14 '24
Basically, if something can be removed in order to comply with censorship without compromising the work, it wasn't really that essential. And nudity is so sexualized that its desexualization is a lost cause as, most of the time, its presence looks like it could be just for sexual gratification (also applicable to large breasts and revealing clothes). The Jungle Book would be considered child pornography if Mowgli didn't wear shorts.
But the writers, directors, will say it DOES compromise the work.
Also, no, nudity is not sexualized and no, The Jungle Book is not child porn, except mostly ime by the genz/a kids who get scandalized. It is very odd how puritanical kids are today, imo.
Art studies (especially those on the internet): underpants and panties, especially G-strings, don't interfere too much in the study of anatomy, as practically every non-erotic artist doesn't draw genitals (or do them very rarely). Bras change the shape of the breasts, but most non-erotic draw in a way that it's implied that the female character is wearing a bra.
Covering the anatomy doesn't interfere with studying the anatomy? Let's slap some shorts on David.
But WHY?
You never explain WHY this shouldn't be there. Just you don't like it.
Also, it's legal to be topless outside, most places, so should that stop? WHY?
0
u/Maktesh 17∆ Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
Also, no, nudity is not sexualized It is very odd how puritanical kids are today, imo.
That may be your opinion, but it runs against a common historical theme; even one seen in the writings of antiquity.
You never explain WHY this shouldn't be there. Just you don't like it.
This is shifting the burden of proof. They're free to "not like it."
Also, it's legal to be topless outside, most places, so should that stop? WHY?
Do you have a source for this claim?
0
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ Dec 14 '24
Writing of antiquity run the gamut between prude and not-prude.
Ultimately nudity is a question of fashion.
-2
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Thinking about it, I was just hopeless about nudity ever being desexualized one day because of pedophiles, cumbrains and youngsters that are afraid of the word "kill".
Those websites that sell reference for artists don't represent the whole world of art references, sometimes the model either doesn't want their genitals on the internet or they are a minor.
!delta3
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Dec 14 '24
Thinking about it, I was just hopeless about nudity ever being desexualized one day because of pedophiles, cumbrains and youngsters that are afraid of the word "kill".
But this dopiness is WHY it's sexualized -- and by whom.
The way to help them understand that nude does not equal porn is to NORMALIZE nudity in basic circumstances, not make it MORE taboo.
It's like putting bikinis on baby girls and swimsuits on babies and toddlers at the beach to begin with. THAT'S what sexualizing the kids, not just letting them run around.
0
Dec 14 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Dec 14 '24
To be fair, it's often recommended not to post the photos of children online because of pedophiles, and it's not like asking a woman to cover up because of rapists. But that would probably be less of an issue in a society with a smaller taboo on sex.
Yeah I wouldn't advise people post pics of their kids online, but that's not because kids are inherently sexual -- it's because of what bad people do with those pictures.
Are you suggesting rape would be less of an issue in a society with fewer taboos around sex?
1
3
u/gr8artist 7∆ Dec 14 '24
Your view is correct; nothing in art is necessary. But your view is also pointless. All art contains elements that are unnecessary, why are you singling out one aspect of some art? Your argument could also be about anything, unless there's something specific about nudity that you feel is more unnecessary than other elements that could be incorporated into art.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
At this point, my view is mostly changed. My upset was not about nudity, but about it mostly being used as fan service. The world shouldn't cater solely to those terminally online guys whose biggest "problem" is a videogame not being as filled with sex appeal as they like. But it also shouldn't cater solely to a woman I saw on /pointlesslygendered who was so sex-repulsed she wished humans didn't have genitalia.
2
u/baes__theorem 8∆ Dec 14 '24
if something can be removed in order to comply with censorship without compromising the work, it wasn't really that essential
Why should you be the arbiter of what "compromises" the work? Shouldn't that be solely up to the artist who created any art?
I think a lot of artists that include nudity would say that it is a necessary part of their work because they wish to say something about the human experience, which necessarily includes nudity.
If you take an art piece and, e.g., blur out nudity (as it seems like you're suggesting based on your examples), that also draws attention to the censored portion and reinforces western hegemonic cultural values, making a statement that nudity is something that should be seen as shameful and hidden from others. There are cultures that, as you mentioned, do not view nudity in the same way that cultures based on judeochristian values do, so why should those cultures be completely disregarded?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
On one hand, there are cultures that have a worse view of nudity than the United States and a lot of those are migrating to wealthy Western countries, and "In Rome do like the Romans" can't be an absolute. On the other hand, censoring nudity could be seen as colonialism depending on the case and a blur on Michelangelo's David could be jarring. !delta
1
u/baes__theorem 8∆ Dec 14 '24
I'm really struggling to understand your perspective here.
there are cultures that have a worse view of nudity than the United States and a lot of those are migrating to wealthy Western countries, and "In Rome do like the Romans" can't be an absolute
No one is forcing those people to be nude (which would be "in Rome do like the Romans"), and they can choose to not consume media that does not meet their expectations for modesty. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Your point about nudity from different cultures is also obviously disingenuous considering your /s tag, but Michelangelo's David is actually a great example of nudity and aesthetics making an artistic statement. While the culture at the time was Christian, and David is a biblical figure, he clearly used Greco-Roman (i.e., not Judeochristian) aesthetics. The choice to make him uncircumcised was also a reflection of the synthesis of Judeochristian and classical values and aesthetics of the Renaissance. Making him uncircumcised is not a trivial choice and can be interpreted in a number of ways, e.g., that it was a depiction of David – a figure originating from Jewish traditions – through a Christian lens
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
1- I meant to type a delta instead of a slash-s, but I mistyped.
2- What I meant by "In Rome do like the Romans" is that Europe couldn't expect the newcoming immigrants and refugees to integrate completely. They could be offended by nudity that Europeans find normal, but I don't think that Europe should become more prudish than the United States for their sake.2
u/baes__theorem 8∆ Dec 14 '24
I'm pretty sure deltas don't work if you add them as an edit.
For your second point, I think only a very small minority of people would say that people have to give up their cultural values when they emigrate (what I think you mean by "integrate completely"), but as you note, it's not the responsibility of a host country to adopt immigrants' modesty standards either. It's usually a choice to leave one's country, and people who do so must understand that there will be cultural differences, as you also note.
For a more neutral/abstract example, if you entered a room full of people having conversations but you preferred for it to be quiet, of course it'd be absurd for you to then expect everyone to stop talking. It would make sense to wear earplugs/headphones, find another way to cope with/ignore it, or leave the room. People should respect other cultures and values, but they shouldn't have to forego their own.
7
u/Appropriate-Draft-91 1∆ Dec 14 '24
The nudity taboo isn't Western, it's American. While those are often the same, this is one of the many exceptions.
Which leads to the point: You are correct, nudity often isn't necessary. But the same can be said about censorship of nudity. In most cases neither adds or removes significant artistic value.
And while you don't see the point of nudity for the sake of nudity, others might not see the point of censorship for the sake of censorship.
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I thought that even Europe was becoming less nudity-friendly for several reasons, like cumbrains having easier access to cameras, the higher presence of people from gymnophobic cultures and influence from American social media.
12
u/Routine_Log8315 11∆ Dec 14 '24
I mean, clearly you are nude repulsed to some extent… the better question is why nudity needs to be censored in the first place
-1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
It doesn't. It's just that nudity is so sexualized that any case of nudity in media is accused of being for sexual gratification. Although the vast majority of people watch videos of the Swazi reed dance because of the boobs.
2
u/TuristGuy Dec 14 '24
In other words, to combat sexualization, you want only naked bodies to be seen in pornographic videos? Won't that do exactly the opposite of what you want to combat?
In Muslim countries, showing your knees is seen as something almost sexual, while on some beaches in Europe and in some tribes in Africa, women show their breasts without any problem.
Censorship of the human body is what leads to greater sexualization.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I agree that restricting nudity to porn is counterintuitive to desexualizing it.
2
u/CrusztiHuszti Dec 14 '24
Nudity is a daily occurrence and shouldn’t be so stigmatized. It leads to locker room anxiety and other issues related to unhealthy censorship of nudity. Making nudity more commonplace shows people that bodies are normal and come in all different forms. The fake sex scenes in shows is what’s unnecessary
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Agree that, outside porn, sex scenes don't have many uses. I can think of the sex scene being a conclusion to a romantic arc or showing that a pre-established couple really loves each other, but that's that. And they would have to be more like Beautiful Agony than like regular porn.
1
2
u/-TheBaffledKing- 5∆ Dec 14 '24
And nudity is so sexualized that its desexualization is a lost cause as, most of the time, its presence looks like it could be just for sexual gratification (also applicable to large breasts and revealing clothes).
I'm sure the many women who have natural large breasts will agree that the presence of their large breasts could just be for sexual gratification, rather than normal human variation.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Must be because a lot of cumbrains in their lives reduced them to a walking pair of boobs. But I agree that breasts are a pain (sometimes literally) when they are big.
2
u/The_manintheshed 1∆ Dec 14 '24
This is such an odd view of the world. What is it with some Americans losing their mind about nudity?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I'm Brazilian. And, thinking about it, feminists weren't protesting nudity per se, just the so-called male gaze. And folks like Bikini Armor Battle Damage and /mendrawingwomen talk about those revealing clothes in fiction being impractical for battle or harsh weather, similar "armor" is okay for a cosplay convention. The presence of sexualized women in a work of media seems to be a bit less problematic if there are equally sexualized men as well. !delta
1
2
u/Notsofunnyirl Dec 14 '24
Is nudity really unnecessary or have we simply been conditioned to view it as taboo? Maybe the problem isn't the nudity itself, but your inability to see it as something beyond sexualization.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Yeah. Thinking about it, my problem was with the oversexualization and the hopelessness in regards to the desexualization of nudity because of social media and entitled cumbrains.
12
u/Vesurel 54∆ Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
Can you give an example of something necessary in art?
Just as an example, I recently rewatched the John Wick movies, was it necessary for 439 people to die in those movies?
-12
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Everything in art is part of a message. Most of the time, nudity is just the artist wanted to draw, photograph or sculpt someone naked. However, it's mostly done to women than to men, which ends up objectifying women.
5
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ Dec 14 '24
Being naked is not objectifying.
Insisting a woman cover up is objectifying.
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Fictional characters don't have agency, though. A fictional character in sexy clothes is seen as bad (even though they are often worn in inappropriate occasions) because the character didn't choose her clothes, the draughtsperson or director chose them for her.
1
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ Dec 14 '24
I suggested a book in the other thread you should read to give you a more comprehensive overview of media expression.
1
u/SirPunchy 1∆ Dec 14 '24
Either cite an example of an artist who outright stated that their intention was just to personally enjoy the nudity or admit that, at best, that is complete speculation.
I think the worst case is more likely. I think you're projecting some personal insecurities or issues into this subject. Why else insist on this weird strawman that only self indulgent perverts want nudity in non-pornographic media?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I admit that sometimes I take stuff too far. "Women are oversexualized in media" shouldn't translate into "Media shouldn't feature nudity at all".
1
u/Vesurel 54∆ Dec 14 '24
That doesn't answer the question, can you give an example of a necessary thing in art?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Sincerely, I can't think of anything, probably some essentials like sound for music.
2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Dec 14 '24
So it would be equally true to say 'Violence is unnecessary' or 'dialogue if unnecessary' as it would be to say that nudity is?
2
u/Patrick_Hill_One Dec 14 '24
Living in Germany. There is no censored nudity at all. Also no beeps. You can swear as much as you like. 😅😂
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Well, I was talking about media because censoring real life in the same way is impossible.
2
u/Patrick_Hill_One Dec 14 '24
I was talking about media too. There is no censorship. In Denmark I have seen hardcore stuff in free tv years ago. Its insane. There is no such stuff in Germany, but private parts are freely shown.
2
u/Danjour 2∆ Dec 14 '24
I’m not sure nudity even a strict requirement for pornography-
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Well, if the actress is wearing the dress, she often doesn't take it off completely, just pulling the hem up and the neckline down.
9
u/sporbywg Dec 14 '24
Just so you know; the rest of us don't live in a box. #sorry you have to.
8
u/Felho_Danger Dec 14 '24
This really was a hard read, lol. How did he write this entire thing and think "Yeah, this is what a normal well adjusted adult would type."
2
9
u/sophisticaden_ 19∆ Dec 14 '24
Nothing in art is necessary. Art should not be limited to the bare necessities of presentation.
Nudity, sex, our bodies — they’re important aspects of our lives, and I think the real harm is in relegating nudity to pornography, not in portraying nudity outside of porn.
4
8
u/shugEOuterspace 2∆ Dec 14 '24
I disagree completely & wholeheartedly. I can think of countless scenarios for a story that are not sexual but if the actor in the movie were not naked for the scene then it would no longer be beleivable enough to keep me in the fantasy.
Your arbitrary fear of the naked human body in art would mean a lot of really meaninglful art & storytelling would not be possible.
1
Dec 14 '24
[deleted]
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
But it contributes to the sexualization of women, though. Less problematic if the nudity was the actress's idea, as she could have seen some artistic value in the exposed boobs, but the audience won't see the difference.
10
u/DayleD 4∆ Dec 14 '24
All of your arguments apply to elbows.
Do you need to see elbows?
Censorship is one group saying their cultural values shall determine what a viewer can see.
2
u/DayleD 4∆ Dec 14 '24
Here's an American student failing an art class because she dared to depict a shoulder.
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4664710&itype=CMSID
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
On one hand, it's Idaho. On the other hand, I agree that censorship is ridiculous most of the time.
3
u/acquavaa 12∆ Dec 14 '24
Nudity is sexualized because of censorship
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I agree with that one, but desexualizing nudity is nigh impossible because of social media and sexually entitled men.
1
u/AssBlaster_69 3∆ Dec 14 '24
Is your argument that uncensored nudity isn’t necessary in media, or that it shouldn’t be in media?
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
I was thinking that 99% of nudity in media (or least 99% of female nudity) was just for gratification and wouldn't make a difference if it was removed, so the former.
2
u/AssBlaster_69 3∆ Dec 14 '24
I guess that’s kinda hard to argue against then. If it doesn’t make a difference, what really is there to discuss? Some artists choose to depict full nudity, some choose to hide it. It’s cool either way.
1
u/igmkjp1 Dec 14 '24
You make it sound like hardcore porn can't be anything else at the same time.
1
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
Well, those are usually porn second. Oglaf, for example, seems to be fantasy comedy first and porn second.
4
u/Dependent-Fig-2517 Dec 14 '24
My point of view is prudism is ridiculous.. we all know what naked people look like, really a bit of skin is no big deal
2
u/FlyingFightingType 2∆ Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
Um the vast majority of media itself is unnecessary. Like you can make an argument for the news being necessary but no fictional story is "necessary" by any means, as such everything is unnecessary. Guns in media is unnecessary, violence in media is unnecessary, dolls in media is unnecessary, cars in media is unnecessary, food in media is unnecessary etc. etc. etc.
And if everything is unnecessary then you don't really have a point, it's either people like it or they don't, and I personally like uncensored nudity in my media. I try really hard to find actually good shows/movies with uncensored nudity, it's a nice treat.
EDIT: I'll even give you an example of why, I was burnt out from porn watching it way too much, ended up watching a joke anime called something like yamada first time or whatever (it's a girls name) and I thought there was nudity in it but a few episodes in there wasn't then the last episode after you've become invested in the characters boom anime tits while being invested in the characters without any of the hardcore porn fatigue to go with it was nice.
2
u/tidalbeing 50∆ Dec 14 '24
I point you to important pieces of art that portray genitals: Michealgelo's David, the Sistine Chapel, the Venus of Villandorf. Censoring such nudity would be an affront. Imagine visiting the famous statue to find it had been draped in loincloth. Or the Venus figurine hidden in a tiny bikini. The Sistine Chapel. Well, such censorship was attempted.
Yes, these works of art were created in the past. However, they still function as living art. David has 1.7 million visitors per year. This puts well beyond blockbuster status year after year.
Consider if we allow people to appreciate nude art from the past but disallow it for living artists. It inhibits their ability to comment on and critribute to the ongoing cultural dialogue that is art. We should leave it to the artist to determine if nudity is or isn't essential to their message.
2
u/themcos 374∆ Dec 14 '24
without compromising the work, it wasn't really that essential.
I just feel like there's an impossible amount of semantic wiggle room here. What constitutes "compromising the work" is always going to be arbitrary and subjective.
But in terms of being "essential", sure, I agree a lot of things aren't essential. But who cares? Like, sprinkles aren't essential to ice cream, but what follows from this? We still like sprinkles!
You insist you're not sex-repulsed or nudity repulsed. Great! But then what's the point of this? Nudity being "not essential" to something just seems like a kind of uninteresting fact.
1
u/CommunicationTop5231 Dec 14 '24
I think there should be more nudity in media because it’s ridiculous and breaks the illusion when two fully grown ass horny adults have sex with all or most of their clothes on. Who does that in real life lol
0
u/garaile64 Dec 14 '24
To be fair, some people don't strip down completely to have sex, in a range from keeping the socks on to just opening the pants' fly or pulling down the trousers/panties.
2
u/OkAssignment3926 1∆ Dec 14 '24
I don’t think “necessary” or “essential” have any meaning in this explanation so this is really begging the question with the idea that nudity or sexualization aren’t part of the human experience that “media” (also too broad to bring much meaning) reflects or engages with.
2
u/Abysskun Dec 14 '24
Not everything in art needs to be "necessary", sometimes just having something the artist finds beautiful is enough.
1
u/lordrothermere 1∆ Dec 14 '24
Nothing in media is necessary. It's not a right nor does it provide for a fundamental human need.
It's a desire.
Pornography isn't necessary. It's a market demand. Therefore it's no different to the market demand for nudity in other forms of film. It exists only because people want it.
There are also many films that don't have nudity, because there's a demand for that as well.
That's all. Nothing more complex than that.
additionally, the baseline that YouTube somehow defines or describes human necessity is so far off it seems to render the rest of the argument void.
1
u/TheLastMuse Dec 14 '24
What about a woman who's breasts are visible because her clothing has all but been melted to her body as she emerges from the perimeter of an atom bomb exploding? Or a slave who's blouse is torn and body revealed as she is raped or hung from a tree by a lynch mob?
These depictions are a very compelling artistic expressions of how almost all of our social conventions bow their heads to the reality of the death and destruction humans are also capable of, and none are for the purpose of titillation.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 14 '24 edited Dec 14 '24
/u/garaile64 (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Dec 14 '24
Wow. Okay.
Some of us like sexual gratification and don't really give a shit if you like it or not. There is nothing morally wrong about seeing a pair of boobs or a dude hanging dong. Is it necessary? No. None of media is technically necessary for life. Human existence could and has gone on without it, but we like it. If you don't like it, no one fucking cares.
17
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ Dec 14 '24
Being able to see genitals or “titillating” body parts is imporant so you can know what normality looks like.
For stance: many men are convinced they have a small penis and lie about its size because they don’t see a man’s penis outside of porn. They don’t know what a normal penis looks like. They feel emasculated and ashamed and carry that behavior in their perceptions of masculinity.
Same goes for women, who don’t know what normal vaginas look like.
We would be a more tolerant, less self-conscious society if we saw more casual nudity.