Talk:Nudity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Nudity (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	1 >>

This page needs archiving

I could do it, have done it for other pages, but I'm too busy right now (lot of copying and pasting involved). See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page.

Also, I don't see a mention in Terminology of the terms "buck naked" or its later corrupted version "butt naked." Search on Google for meanings. 209.26.250.130 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Representation

From the artist perspective I dont think that the word nude or naked makes much of a difference. I have worked as a figure model, and while it can be taxing staying still for long periods of time I find it quite enjoyable. Being nude in front of a class room of artist is very comfortable, because they are very professional. I have modeled in front of many age groups and various experience level. If I know I will be modeling in a few weeks it also gives me more incentive to be in shape. I have modeled perhaps 50 times and only about 5 times did I get a spontanuous erection. Most of the time the instructor will continue the pose until the prescribed time, other times a break will be called and I will take care of the situation. For the most part the class sees the model as the subject and class goes on.

Isn't the representation of nudity, i.e. in a film, in a picture, in a sculpture, a nudity itself? It seems to me that the effect is the same: nude bodies are shown. Usually (AFAIK) physical nudity and its representation are evaluated the same way.

Really? When I was in the Prado, I saw lots of naked people on canvas, but very few if any naked people visiting the museum. - user:Montrealais

I think there's a difference between represented nakedness and actual nakedness (I prefer to use the NPOV term "naked" rather than "nude" which connotes a positive spin).

Your assertion that "naked" is somehow a NPOV term between "nude" and "stripped" is a POV I, for one, don't share. The fact that someone wrote a book arguing that it should work that way doesn't mean that it's how people actually use the terms; to the contrary, the fact that the case had to be made at all points out that they do not.

Furthermore, it's traditional for the titles of encylopedia articles to be nouns (e.g. "nudity"), not adjedtives. Tverbeek 15:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For example, it's acceptable to have a restaraunt with a view of people who are less than fully clothed, such as happens in hotel restaurants that often overlook a pool, where people are visible wearing only their swimsuits. However, a guy walked into the resturant from the pool, at Usenix 98, and the person at the front desk yelled out "Sir! There are ladies in this restaurant." What is visible from the resturant is alot different than what actually happens there, i.e. the representation of people who are not fully clothed is alot different than people actually not being fully clothed.

As another example, we might see a bank robber with a gun on the news on TV in the restaurant, but if a man with a gun actually walked into the restaurant there would be quite a commotion.

Despite our postmodern society that can't seem to tell the difference between reality and represented reality, I still think there is a difference between the signifier and the signified.

Theatre is a middle ground. For example, I've seen completely naked actors in a theatrical production that showed a scene where people would be expected to be naked, i.e. appropriate nakedness. But if audience members were naked, this would be out of context. Since theatre is, at least in part, simulacra/simulation (i.e. Artaud who coined the term "Virtual Reality" coined this term to denote theatre), the nakedness in theatre is OK because it's on the other side of the proscenium, which functions much like the TV screen or the glass window that separates the pool from the restaurant in the example I explained above.

Bush?

By putting in one about Bush does not make a poltical statement? I thought this place was suppose to make npov

That's not much more NPOV than the rest of the paragraph. And you forgot to leave the first quote mark in place, anyway. But it's not POV to say that people say that slogan, just to endorse that slogan. -- John Owens

Here is my point there are about 4 or 5 other slogans why allow a cheap shot that is directed at one person

If you phrase it correctly, fine. -- John Owens

John you have restore my faith in this forum for now Keith( also incorrectly spelled Kieth) don't ask

I disagree, i think that it is more pov than the rest of the statements, its also more vulgar. further i have heard all of the others but not this one. can we cite it as a popular slogan? Cavebear42 15:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course it reflects a POV; it's a political slogan. And as for it being vulgar, again: that's the point of it. I don't think any of them can be called "popular" (they're all protesting popular opinion), but I saw variations on the "read my lips" one frequently during the first Persian Gulf War. Tverbeek 16:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem with that slogan isn't the political aspect but... that it's only incredibly very loosely related to nudity. The other quotes are about nudity... while this only necessarily implies a revealed labia which isn't typically what is thought of as nudity and there is nothing explicit about it... I'd remove it because it's not about nudity like "Nudes not nukes" is... and it's not advocating nudity like that quote is either... it's just a bad quote for this article, not because it's political. gren 20:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who said the examples were supposed to be of people advocating nudity? They're not; they're uses of nudity as part of a political statement. You're right: a protest slogan that revolves around the revealing of shaved labia isn't related to nudity; it is nudity... "beyond social norms" as the section header states. Maybe the problem is that it doesn't translate well to just the slogan, and needs some description of the context. Tverbeek 22:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western culture

I question the adequateness of the statement: "Western culture has become much more restrictive about nudity for children in recent decades, presumably as a result of concerns about pedophilia and child pornography." (My emphasis.) I don't know, I admit that I really don't know, but I would suggest that it might be more a question of Anglo-Saxon cultural diffusion, and of dress fashion, than of genuinely changed views on the sexual value of pre-pubertal (or pubertal) children. Anglo-Saxons have, I believe, been more prudish than even Catholics on the Continent. I'm prepared to change the presumption.

As a support (admittedly a weak support, but the best I can come up with :) for my theory is my own experience: Why did my mates and I start jumping into the river in our underpants to take them off and lie naked in the sun while drying, when the Big Boys did it the other way round? Why did we continue with this custom when WE were the big boys? I can think of no other reasonable explanation than that being how our cultural models on TV did. (In TV bathing boys were often shown, but the drying-up part wasn't, and the bathing boys were never naked, unless they were from some backwards corner of the world.) -- Ruhrjung 17:41 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is definitely more of an issue in England and especially America. In England the Victorians were extremely prudish about nudity. Even an ankle would have been considered obscene. Although it is interesting that public nudity in certain contexts was probably more accepted in the victorian era than it is now. people would often bathe in rivers nude. This was probably because men and women were segregated so it was acceptable to be nude in the prescensce of members of the same sex and also that outside 'polite society' most ordinary people were not as prudish as we think of them.

America is also particularly obsessed about sex. I think rather than being inspite of being protestant it is because England and America have been strongly protestant that nudity is an issue. There is a misconception that nudity=sex. Why should a woman's breasts be obscene? They are not a sex organ and have nothing to do with sex but are purely for feeding babies. Male nipples are not considered obscene so why womens? --Cap 11:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In art

New topic: how about a page for Nudity in art?

Patrick on July 18, 2003,

Editing

I notice that when you edited this page you must have used an external word processor, and then pasted the whole article back in. When you do it this way you loose connectivity to the old article and it ends up looking like you edited the whole thing. I suggest that in the future if you do it that way again you might document what you actually changed, in the edit Summary section, just to make it easier for the rest of us to see what was altered. Thanks. Reigh

I did not use an external editor, but I see that the revision of 14:04 18 Jul 2003 UTC is accidently blank, I don't know why. I agree that this can be inconvenient because the diff function is only available between consecutive versions and between a selected and the last version. Currently you can still see easily the combined effect of my last three changes because there are no later changes yet: [1] - Patrick 01:17 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Murals and art

"Once the universal state of mankind prior to the invention of clothing." Have the nuns been using those 18th century textbooks again? In the "Progress of Mankind" mural, does this vignette follow "The Discovery of Fire"? Wetman 06:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image

Is the photograph Image:Artful_nude really necessary here? I don't think so; especially not one that doesn't even show the subject's face. If you must have a nude photograph, include one of the entire body preferably, or at least the crown to the waist or kneecap. I think that this needs to be changed.

Cookiecaper 04:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can find a better public-domain nude image, feel free. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:57, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

But why should it include a face? The article already has an image of a traditional artistic nude, in which complete nude figures are shown. By contrast, this is a fairly typical modern artistic nude, in which the human form is instead treated as a semi-abstract compositional element, not as a potrait or illustration of a scene. In modern nude photography or painting, including the subject's face is usually considered more provocative, because it invites the viewer to "connect" with the subject as an individual (which is why most pornography is shot that way). It's more likely to be perceived as "naked" rather than "nude". I'd also rather Wikipedia steered clear of that here. I think this photo is reasonably tasteful, and a good illustration of the article's subject. It may not be strictly necessary, but I don't see any harm from it. Tverbeek 12:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here in Canada, an advertisment that pictured a woman in a bathing suit was banned precisely because it did not show her face. It merely showed her body! It was an ad for whiskey. It was banned because it was dehumanizing, and by not including the face, was seen as objectifying women. Many people found the advertisement offensive because it depicted the woman as a piece of flesh, rather than an entire human being. When we see a butcher shop, we often see cattle without their heads. We see a hunk of meat hanging from a meat hook. This desensitizes us to the overall context. The headless piece of meat is thus, in many ways, like the hooded prisoner, in which the nameless faceless entity gets regarded in some sub-human way. It's thus (with the recent Iraq prison situation) possible it might be interpreted as "stripped" rather than "nude". Glogger 14:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) Do you really mean "banned" by the government or some other authority, or do you mean "people complained about it, so the advertiser took it down?" (If it's the former, I'm going to have to reconsider fleeing to Canada if the upcoming U.S. election goes badly.)

2) A woman in a bathing suit is quite a different thing from a woman without any clothes. And the context of it being a commercial advert changes things as well. The analogy to meat is an interesting feminist critique (and I agree with it to a point), but it's not how the subject is usually addressed in art; it should be included as an example of a POV, not as the objective way of categorising images.

I'm by no stretch of the imagination a prude but I do think the exploitative image on this page is unnecessary. "Nude" does not need illustrating. It's not as though anyone reading this does not know what a naked body looks like (although some might only be aware of what their own is like). Were there a selection of nude bodies, perhaps some conforming less to the stereotypical Western image of beautiful form, then this might be more acceptable. At the very least, a picture of both a man and a woman -- with heads! -- would be much better. Dr Zen 05:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An image of a man and woman (including their heads) would be a very good suggestion... if the article didn't already have one. I wouldn't have a problem with an image showing a figure that isn't considered "beautiful", but is the intent here to illustrate what the human body looks like, or to illustrate nudity as a concept and a subject of art? I think you're right that the idea of "not wearing clothes" doesn't need illustrating, but the treatment of the subject in art probably does. The b&w photo is a typical example of nudity in modern representational art; I really don't see it as "exploitative". If it were a pornographic image, I could see your point, but I think it's rather tasteful. (Personally, I'd be happy to have a male image instead, but I think that'd upset more people, as male nudity is less commonly seen and therefore more controversial... and also a poorer example.) Tverbeek 13:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My point, which you have gleefully skipped over, is that "tastefulness" does not quit a person of the charge of "exploitation". Arty porn is still porn. The purpose of the photo remains the objectification of the attractive female body. There are countless images of less "tasteful" bodies and yet the one chosen is not. Hmmm. I'm not in the least concerned about "upsetting" people. I simply don't feel the image in place conveys what you believe it does. Rather than say "this is how the nude body is conveyed in art", it says to me "this is how 'art' objectifies women in the same way as 'porn' but thinks it can escape the charge by doing it in well-lit b&w". There are plenty of artists who photograph the nude body in an interesting way a million miles from the wankfodder presented here. Yes, you are right, this is often how the female nude is presented, but if your argument really does devolve to claiming that Wikipedia should reflect usage rather than look to inform, I look forward to an interesting illustration for the pornography article.Dr Zen 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever it's "saying", it's describing the world as it really is, and yes, I do think that Wikipedia should do that as objectively as possible. Even including the parts that not everyone considers "nice". The fact that it can't be that frank with certain other articles (without getting into legal trouble) is no reason it shouldn't do it with this one, where it can. That's how Wikipedia does in fact inform. By contrast, taking a stand against (what you consider) exploitation is not "informing"; that's persuading, and it's not what Wikipedia is meant to do. Tverbeek 00:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not think you are being in the slightest bit "objective". That is my point entirely. By using artporn as your illustration, you are suggesting that this objectification of women is acceptable (which you believe) and that contrary views are not. Perhaps you will point me to the part of the article where you discuss the image, and why it properly illustrates nudity? It is not a question of being frank because the message your image conveys is not open, out on the table, but is covert. (The message is "it is okay to objectify women so long as you can claim it's art -- we claim it's art by using moody lighting". Dude, I like nuddy pictures of ladies as much as anyone, and I certainly prefer my pr0n tasteful, but I don't consider my preferences in any way "objective". What you continue to ignore is that Wikipedia chooses how to "inform". It doesn't report everything. It chooses what slant it puts on things. By upfront containing an image of a woman's torso, it puts across the message that nudity means a woman's unclothed torso. Yes, that's one of the things it means. So is a Jpeg of a busty porn star! Because these things exist, and including them would presumably only be informing the reader, I suppose you do not mind if I acquire and emplace a nude photo of my choosing from that genre? Or is porn only okay in black and white?Dr Zen 00:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make this about me, because it's not. I didn't write most of the article. I didn't contribute the image. I don't even find it all that interesting to look at. (As a gay man, how much more dispassionate about female nudity could you want?) So please drop the "you you you" accusations. The only stake I have in this little tempest you're brewing in a teapot is as someone who objects to unilateral censorship based on subjective criteria. If you can find an available image that represents modern artistic nudity without being what you consider "porn", upload it and use it. Or if you feel the text needs to explain how some people feel that nude images of women (including this one) objectify them, then kindly stop whining about its failure to do so, and add that information to the article. I do respect that point of view, and I'm certainly not going to try to stop you. (Some of my best friends feel that way. Some don't.) I just don't give that point of view unilateral veto power over the choice of images to use to illustrate the article, which is what you seem to be insisting it should have. Tverbeek 04:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Luckily, my time on the interwebnet has accustomed me to users who simply do not listen to whatever others say, so it comes as no surprise that you simply do not address what I am talking about. I'm rather bemused that you suggest that I am trying to veto an illustration because I think it is porn. That rather casts me as something I am not. I do not believe you are "dispassionate" about female nudity at all. Why does not taking a sexual interest make you necessarily dispassionate? I'm not interested in having sex with men, but even so, I can be passionately interested in depictions of men's forms. Or do you think not? So blinkered that you can only understand the world this way or that? I addressed my points to "you" in the general, not "you" in the particular. I meant "you" who have been working on the article (for which you are in the position of spokesperson by default). Don't take it so personally. I'm asking you to discuss an image that has been used. As it happens, I find your aggressive attitude and unwillingness to even engage the subject disheartening. This is why edit wars happen. Editors with a fixed POV, such as yourself, fight for their "turf" and do not so much as consider counterarguments. I repeat that my criteria for "censorship" are far from subjective. Did I not say that I liked the photo? I think it conveys a POV message though. But you just aren't hearing that. It suits you to hear what you want to. This conversation is finished. Keep your article as it is. So much for discussion and compromise.Dr Zen 05:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hear it. I simply don't agree with it. There's a difference. Tverbeek 05:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Several months later, a better pic (better for reasonings, im not discussing taste) has been used and I commend the editor who did. Cavebear42 21:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should provide some reasons why this is better, because I don't see how it is. The article already had one 19th century head-to-toe painting of reclining nude woman making eye contact with the viewer; how does a second one add anything to it? This isn't an article about nudity in pre-modern painting; it's about nudity in general, and I think that including some relevant image from the past century would be appropriate. Tverbeek 22:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didnt state any reasons b/c i was supporting his reason for changing it, "replace no-name nude with famous nude". further, the other paintings were put there to show both the change in feelings on nudity and to show the use of nudity only to depict classical scenes. The top picture is used to set the tone of the article and help emphsize the point of the article. i think that this new pic shows that very well, has much more to add than the other paintings, and the addition of a random b/w nude would add no more than last months playboy centerfold. dont get me wrong, i like the b/w nude (she's my desktop background) but i feel that this is a better contribution to the subject of nudity as a whole. Cavebear42 23:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tverbeek. Image:Artful_nude is worth including here, if there's room for another photo of a woman. Thing is, we've already got enough photos of women and not enough of men. The "erleuchtung" model is also very tasteful, so I guess it's a toss-up. But fwiw I'd support including "artful_nude". Kasreyn 11:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry guys. I'll erase everyone. User:Coconutfred73 8:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Naked

If there's going to be a merger (independent of the question of what the title of the page should be), I would hope to see some of the material from Naked salvaged and imported into Nudity, rather than the other way around. The former page is substantially less organised, not as well written, and has some material that really doesn't seem encyclopedic in nature (reflecting the existing consensus as best as possible), but more suited to an essay suggesting new insights into subject. (e.g. the "new inventions" section and the book reports). Tverbeek 15:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've executed a merger of this page with Naked, taking what material I could incorporate from that page into this one, and reorganising it somewhat in the process. I believe the usage of both naked and nude (and variations thereof) in the resulting article represents a non-POV treatment of the subject (though of course the text itself may have remaining biases). Tverbeek 19:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naked is more neutral than Nude

"Nude" is being censored in other links to Wikipedia. For example, http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Swimming_pool has censored "Nude" but has not censored "Naked". Part of the reason may be that "Naked" is a neutral point of view (factual) term that describes a scientific reality, whereas "Nude" is certainly not neutral, i.e. "Nude" calls to mind nudism, nudes, nude photos, and thus carries with it an unnecessarily positive (pro-nudist) bias.

What might appear well written is not necessarily neutral point of view.

See Censored page in the quote from one of the websites that's censoring Wikipedia Nude:

Some public swimming pools have regular hours for Censored page swimming, and some pools even require nakedness (i.e. bathingsuits are not allowed). Until recently, many YMCA pools required users to be naked, or to have a bathingsuit made of materials that will not contaminate the pool: the words often used were "nylon bathingsuit or no bathingsuit". More recently dress codes in many pools have been relaxed to allow for additional modestly. Many pool operators allow people to swim fully clothed if they can prove that they have a second set of clothes that are only for use in the pool, and if they are willing to go through the showers in this second set of clothes prior to entering the pool.

The fact that somebody's censoring a word doesn't make it inherently POV. I think you'll find a lot of objective terms censored in a lot of situations, simply because they refer to things someone doesn't want to talk about. The site you cite does it because they think it's naughty not because they think the term is pro-nudist. The site also censors the entire anatomical article on the "reproductive system". Search for their version of the Wikipedia pages for "vagina" or "penis" and you get the same "censored page" redirect. By your reasoning, we should rename those pages to "cooter" and "dingus" because those aren't censored, and lack the "unnecessarily positive bias" of the other terms. Others' censorship should have no bearing on the content of Wikipedia.

Naked and nude are two words that have the same literal meaning (denotation): without covering. They have different connotations, but neither of them is inherently NPOV compared to the other. The question is simply which one makes more sense as the title of an encyclopedia article.

Tverbeek 13:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although I personally prefer nudity, I disagree with the removal of nakedness as an alternate title for the article. This article is a merger of Nudity and Naked (which now redirects here), and it tries not to favor one term over the other. This was a compromise following the above debates over arguably POV terminology. Furthermore, my research doesn't support the etymological difference cited by User:Tregoweth. Webster says that nude comes from the Latin nudus meaning "naked", and their etymology for naked says it's akin to several older Indo-European words... including nudus. I read that as naked being the Germanic cousin of the Romanic nude, not two distinct words that coincidentally apply to the same state of being without clothing.

Unless I'm very much mistaken (always a possibility), I think you mean a user other than me. —tregoweth 02:22, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you're right. User:MicroGlyphics edited it several minutes before you did, and I mistook his changes as yours. Tverbeek 03:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The two words clearly have a different etymology, because an etymology is the whole of a word's history, how it came to be and how it came to have the meaning it does, rather than simply its ultimate origin. As it happens the Wikipedia article on etymology is slightly misleading on this score (compare any decent dictionary, which will make it clear that history is equally a part of etymology as origin alone -- use Webster's if you like, since you have mentioned it: \Et`y*mol"o*gy\ (-j[y^]), n.; pl. Etymologies (-j[i^]z). [L. etymologia, Gr. 'etymologi`a; 'e`tymon etymon + lo`gos discourse, description: cf. F. ['e]tymologie. See Etymon, and -logy.] 1. That branch of philological science which treats of the history of words, tracing out their origin, primitive significance, and changes of form and meaning.), although it does say that etymologists study words' histories. "Nude" derives from a legal meaning of plainness and is direct from "nudus". "Naked" derives from "nakod" meaning unclothed in old English and cognate with "nudus". They clearly do not have a common etymology, but rather a common origin. Your reversion was far too hasty, and you might more reasonably have rewritten the material. What is currently there is plain wrong.Dr Zen 03:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, etymology was a poor choice of words (stuck in my head from the text that was in question); origin is better. But considering that the text I removed was even more incorrect than my revision (it contradicted your account of their etymologies), I think it was appropriate. Tverbeek 12:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nude vs. Naked

It was once explained to me that 'nude' is something of a natural state of being unclothed, while 'naked' calls to mind being defenseless, exposed, unprotected, unarmored against the world or viewers, a possibly shameful state. Whether you considered yourself nude or naked would be a matter of rather significant psychological connotations. This sort of difference seems consistent with the different etymological sources for the word. Is this view not generally accepted? --Obsidian-fox 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has any objections? I might add this, then. --Obsidian-fox 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

To be honest, I think I prefered the previous lead image Image:Artful nude.jpg to the current Image:Frau.jpg.

Its not a clear choice however; the first more tasteful, but is smaller and from www.sxc.hu (there have been some recent concerns over the blanket license on www.sxc.hu which would exclude Wikipedia unless the contributor has made an explicit license statement - it is possible that the default 'There are no usage restrictions for this photo' doesn't amount to public domain and leaves the site's standard reuse restrictions in place.) The second is larger, by a Wikipedian, has an explicit license and is perhaps less pretentious. -- Solipsist 19:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not a photo with a nude man as well? Nudity isn't limited to women (though you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise online). —tregoweth 21:11, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for male nudity :)~, but the Gerome painting elsewhere in the article shows an example of that, and as you point out, depiction of female nudity is more typical. A photograph including both male and female nudes would probably tread too close to porn for many people. For the record, I prefer the previous image as well, but have no objection to the current one. Tverbeek 03:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I've just noticed there a recent RfC over the choice of nude images on woman. The picture Image:Frau.jpg seems to have been part of the original problem over there. However, they also have Image:Erleuchtung.jpg which is rather good, and part of the Pioneer plaque which might kill two birds with one stone since the full plaque includes a male nude. -- Solipsist 10:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Frau.jpg seems to be a problem wherever it's added—it doesn't help that a few users really really want to add it to some article (see Talk:Breast and Talk:Teat). —tregoweth 19:42, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

User:Duncharris removed with the comment "(picture of fat woman is horrible)". She's mature, only somewhat plump, rather pretty and very curvy, so this appears to be a matter of taste, doesn't it? Lets find a picture we can agree upon that illustrates the point without being pretentious or contentious. Any suggestions? Leonard G. 00:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ASCII art? Stick figures? :) —tregoweth 01:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

As I said, Image:Erleuchtung.jpg is probably worth a shot. Also surely the Swedish or Danish Wiki has a photo of a couple at nudist camp or somewhere. -- Solipsist 21:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New vote option...

...added to Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Wikipedia, feel free to vote with me. — マイケル ₪ 03:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Full frontal nudity discussion

Hi: Wikipedia is beginning to be peppered with photos that belong in "Playboy" etc. No moral person can accept the possible consequences of this development. Please express your views at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia? [2] Thank you for giving this matter your serious attention! IZAK 13:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture choice

Though I really don't mind- only females are depicted in all of the pictures. This detail popped into my head while reading and sort of distracted me from the purpose of the article... anyone else feel the same?

Um, the ghost of the male model who posed for the Gerome painting wants to have a word with you, outside. :) I do agree it would be appropriate to replace one of the female nude photos with a tasteful male nude photo that's relevant to the text. Tverbeek 13:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both males and females prefer images of nude females on average, so thats probably why. I'll ad thumb|200px|Michelangelo's David

Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 13:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there should be an equal amount of pictures of men and women, why are nearly all the pictures of women? what about equal oppertunities......

Commented out problematic statement re European nudity

I commented out this section because I'm European and I don't know what it's on about. "Nudity in a sexual but non-pornographic context, however, has in many European countries remained on the fringe of what is socially acceptable for public shows, although this situation has been liberalized during the 20th century." Anybody know? A source would be good. Maybe it's just a matter of poor wording. An interpretation (into European English, perhaps?) would be helpful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Movies

The article says:

Noteworthy films which garnered controversy at the time of their release due to nudity include:

Inspiration (dir. George Platt 1915) the first film to feature nudity
Ecstasy (dir. Gustav Machaty 1933)
Blow-Up (dir. Michelangelo Antonioni 1966)
I Am Curious (Yellow) (dir. Vilgot Sjöman 1967)
Romeo and Juliet (dir. Franco Zeffirelli 1968)
Women in Love (dir. Ken Russell 1969)
Last Tango in Paris (dir. Bernardo Bertolucci 1972)
Blue Velvet (dir. David Lynch 1986)
Basic Instinct (dir. Paul Verhoeven 1992)
The Piano (dir. Jane Campion 1993)

Well I've seen most of these movies. They contained nudity, some of them (not so sure they all contained significant nudity). I just don't recall, for instance, "Basic Instinct" being controversial for nudity. Much less The Piano (an utterly uncontroversial art house movie, I recall, rather pedestrian after the wonderful Orlando, which certainly did contain nudity and was not controversial either). But I can buy some of this--maybe nudity in movies was controversial as late as 1968. But really...Blue Velvet? That was controversial, but hardly for the nudity (which I honestly don't remember, if it occurred). What's up? Am I missing something? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For starters, Basic Instinct included a scence where Sharon Stone uncrosses her legs slowly exposing her panty-less crotch. In The Piano, Harvey Keitel has a full-frontal nude scene. --mtz206 14:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

But that was not the first - I can't recall the movie, but it was about 5-10yr previous, hollywood release, major well known male star. Leonard G. 03:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original poster. There needs to be some justification why these movies are listed. Most of the movies listed are not notable for their nudity, but are notable or controversial for their sexual content. Last Tango in Paris was not banned for nudity, it was banned for an anal sex scene in which there is little or no nudity. Titanic is also not noteworthy for it's nudity, it was not the first PG-13 or even PG movie with nudity. I think movies like Boogie Nights, About Schmidt are much more notable for their nudity, by either bucking the trend (a nude Kathy Bates) or with their frank portrayal of nudity. These movies should either be removed or justified. I also think that there should be a separate list for films that were notable for sexual content. See Sex in Cinema for an excellent overview of movies that broke sexual ground. Reflex Reaction 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We could make an endless list of movies that had nude scenes. That isn't the point, though. The list should contain ground-breaking uses of nudity in movies, something new or different. — Walloon 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos/pictures

I can only ask whether it is appropriate to use exclusively artistic nudity? (Paintings, sculptures...) Also, the nudity is almost exclusively female. While this could be okay, I think we need at least two honest depictions of nudity, one male, one female. You know: real people. - Gavin 06-02-2005

I agree that it is not OK that all the nude photos are of females. This perpetuates harmful stereotypes.Dan Lesh 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of "artistic" images helps to placate those who object to any images of nudity in the article. And three of them are photographs (of people whom I pretty sure are "real") so I'm not sure I see your point. Plus, I disagree with your implication that if they're "art", they're "dishonest". The point of these images isn't to illustrate what a typical nude body looks like; that's an anatomy question. The subject of the article is the social phenomenon of nudity, and I think the images should try to reflect how nudity is manifested in society. That's why - despite a personal preference for male nudity - I think it's appropriate that there would be more female images here, because in our society, breasts are much more prominent than balls. With that said, I do think that the two B&W female photos are a bit redundant, and the Weston photo is a copyright violation anyway, so I've removed it. Also, I've added an (ahem) "honest" illustration of male nudity in public showers for the otherwise imageless "Various modern-era attitudes" section. Tverbeek 21:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed Section

I've removed the section added by an anon IP on "Movie Actresses who've never done nude scenes." I don't think anyone will mind the removal of un-encyclopedic content, but it does make me wonder if there might by the possibility of forking off some of this information into "Nudity in Modern Media" or some such, as the latter half of the article discusses this in much more detail than nudity in general. Just a though... --Icelight 21:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Christian biblical account?

Why is the Christian creation myth given such a prominent role in this article? It is put on nearly equal footing with secular ideas of humanity's adoption of clothing, but it is the only religious account mentioned. Surely there are other myths in other religions of why people started wearing clothes that deserve to be mentioned as well. In my opinon, it would be more neutral to have a paragraph about secular theories of why people began wearing clothes, and a separate paragraph about religious myths which includes more than just the Christian account.

If there are other religious viewpoints on the question, feel free to add them. Otherwise, lacking a third viewpoint, I think the appropriately neutral approach is to mention both of these, equally prominently. To do otherwise would be playing favorites. In fact, if the Judeo-Christian legend is only being given "nearly equal footing", them we should boost it up. Tverbeek 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What happened to frau.jpg?

Frau.jpg is nowhere to be found. What's the story? Paul 16:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No story. Just someone felt there were better illustrative examples available and put them in instead. Tverbeek 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well there was a bit of a story. The image was deleted on the 7th June by User:Lommer following a listing of WP:IFD ([3]). Not only was the photo somewhat more trouble than it was worth, it seems it was also a copyvio in any case. -- Solipsist 14:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

get rid of it READ THIS!!!!!!!!

Why are there so many REAL-LIFE nude pics? Now before you get all stuck-up, I know what you long time admins are going to say:

Well, we have a disclaimer, and it's just used when appropriate and relevant!

But I mean, what if you have little kids or something looking at this? You know that in the U.S., it's against the law to look at pornographic images under the age of 18 or 21 or something? I mean, come on. You perverts. At least get rid of the REAL ones that show absolutely intolerable images. --Slightly Angry 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. -- Solipsist 09:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Or something. --Craig (t|c) 19:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is that 100% allowed? I mean, could we at least have all GIFs and sketches? --Slightly Illegal? 21"44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In Elbonia it is illegal for anyone to look at the images of any people not covered by a veil.

If the US has backwards laws/social norms, it's their own problem. Arvindn 06:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's "100% allowed"; Wikipedia policy is very clear about this, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the suggested link. And no, there's no sound reason to exclude photos, because none of these images are obscene or vulgar. If you have a specific, rational, and coherent argument to make against any particular image, that's fine, but calling people "perverts" (personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia policy) and asking questions that have already been answered is not at all constructive. Tverbeek 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I mean, especially in the breast article, there's so many pics! Can we at least drop a few? --Slightly less pics 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Daunrealist, if there were a lot of nakedness here I would agree with you *into the high teens* but there are less then 10 I think its kosher --Kylehamilton 12:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of content should be censored, but can anyone find fault with a simple banner at the top of such a page indicating that the content may be offensive? - andyjm

^ That idea is utterly ridiculous, doesn't warrant discussion at all. It becomes more simple if you read Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Skinnyweed 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find fault with it. Such a banner would imply that there was something offensive about the images, which there is not. It would be more subtle than removing the images, but it would still be editorializing and POV. Kasreyn 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, you search for breasts, nudity, penis and the like, that is what you get. If kids search for that sort of thing, what do you think they might be expecting to come across? Bennyboyz3000 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

nude man

we need a picture of a nude man too

Totally agree. We should be able to find a PD photo of Andrew Martinez. OMG that's a red link?? Arvindn 07:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There are photos of flimmaker Jamal Morelli out there, playing clarinet nude in Berkeley in 1993-94 as the "Naked Minstrel". Find that photo! (sorry, I don't have!)

Agree too! It is plain to see that this article was made by heterosexual men. It is not representative enough. There should be a few nude males - the same number as nude females. (unsigned comment by User:83.70.61.197)

I've contributed substantially to this article and I am not at all heterosexual.
The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to entertain (but to inform), so the fact that the article is slightly less entertaining to hetero girls and gay guys is not a valid criticism.
The article has a total of 7 semi/nude female figures and 5 nude male figures. While this is not equal, it does reflect the fact that female nudity is more widely depicted in our society.

Tverbeek 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is about photographs rather than pictures, where females win at least 3:0. Arvindn 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

But the point still stands that "I want more beefcake" is not a valid criticism. Tverbeek 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is not to entertain girls or gay men because obviously Wikipedia is not the site they will visit if the want to see nude men. The article is about Nudity so I think it is fair enough to show real-life photos of how both male and female individuals look like nude. After all, when we think of nudity we associate it only with human beings, not animals or something, so it has to present both variants.

Wikipedia must be a nutral equal venue for everything.....even nakeness we should make things about 50/50 and mention that female nakedness is much more common, im a breeder and even I thought that the male nakeness was a bit lacking --Kylehamilton 12:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Still no picture(s) of a nude man.

I dont think a picture of a nude man should be used. Nude men are gross, but nude women is art. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.211.69 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 March 2006.

Does any one else agree that a photo of a naked man is too stomach churning for the site. Nude women photos are art. 3 April 2006

Of course not. Photos of nude men are art too. I collect nude male art. Sweetie Petie 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just think that nude men are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Nude women look better, 7 April 2006

Does anyone agree?

—This unsigned comment was added by 68.187.213.16 (talk • contribs) .

That's rather subjective, don't you think? The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to titillate. Fishhead64 17:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I like all the photos, there arnt many of women tho, was ti always like this? 2 to 12 or something, So, we need more women maybe less (historical) art of men and more real nudes (men) instead? i like the idea of a nudist camp shot. what do the scandies have? Cilstr 08:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I removed this whole paragraph because too much of it is wrong.

One of the more interesting examples of certain modern attitudes towards nudity occurred in 2002 when Republican U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered a semi-nude statue at the Department of Justice covered with a curtain. The statue, the Spirit of Justice, has been on display at DOJ since the 1920s. When new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, also a Republican, assumed the office in 2005, he ordered the curtain removed. The statue had also been curtained temporarily from time-to-time under Republican Attorney General Richard Thornburgh when he spoke in the room. In another memorable episode, when Republican Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, press photographers hit the floor to photograph him speaking in front of the partially clad statue.

First, the statue has been on display since it was made in the 30s, not the 20s, and that whole part of the room was covered, not just one statue, there's no proof that Ashcroft ordered ordered the curtains, etc. I'd go through and fix it, but I don't feel like it.--Cuchullain 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-write needed?

The article as it stands treats nudity from a Western, and even a US, standpoint, rather than from a culturally neutral one. I think a better approach would treat the following points (in order): 1. Nudity=lack of clothing (already treated). 2. While clothing has a practical function, the cultural function is even stronger. 3. Nudity is therefore a cultural artefact also, and perceptions differ both between contemporary cultures and over time.

I don't think there's really a lot more to be said - the article could certainly be a lot shorter than it is at present. I also think that some more illustrative illustrations (sorry, couldn't resist) could be used - e.g., Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco of the Creation, in which M. painted Adam (and others) nude: with a decade or so the Church had changed its mind about nudity ande another artist was hired to cover up what it had previously accepted.PiCo 21:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need a rewrite it just needs someone to add a easten point of view --Kylehamilton 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than the Sistine Chapel, you might to use Masaccio's The Expulsion Of Adam and Eve from Eden, which is a classic example of the addition and removal of fig leaves as tastes change over time. I had been planning to use it on erotic art to illustrate how opinions on what might be considered erotic depends on the era, but it could work here too. -- Solipsist 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Masaccio is good, but the Sistine brings in the Vatican, which is more newsworthy even than a Medici :). Have you seen the Medici portraits in the Uffizi? I was amazed at how they slowly turned into a procession of Hapsburg lips - those Hapsburg genes are in every royal bedroom in Europe! I like the idea of an Eastern viewpoint - maybe something can be done? PiCo 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"In the 6th century, Benedict of Nurcia advised in his Rule that the monks sleeping in the dormitory should sleep fully dressed." Does this mean sleeping naked was the usual practice of the time, if Benedict had to make a rule telling the monks not to? PiCo 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"As a general rule, public nudity is not considered "proper" in most societies." This misses the very important point that what is considered nudity varies hugely between societies. I've seen Western backpacker-girls walking round Angkor in tank-tops, and their boyfriends in shorts, both blissfully unaware that in Cambodian eyes they're nude in public. The article needs to be much more culturally aware. PiCo 09:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-Western attitudes

I lived in Japan for 7 years and never heard of a nudist camp over there. Perhaps the writer was confused with hot springs?

165.121.235.18 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there are definitely some innacuracies here. Removed "In both cases (mixed or segregated) public bathing in Japan is done in total nudity." There is no 'undress code' at the onsen I have been to, and the women often go covered by a sarong, which covers a whole lot more than any bathing suit made since the early 1900's. From what I can tell, Japan's 'naked culture' seems to have mostly dissappeared. OkashinaSakana 15:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Women fully wrap a towel around their body (a method called "gunkan maki") for TV shoots for obvious reasons, but what is actually practiced off TV is different. Bathers only carry a towel, and dipping that towel in the yubune, or bathtub, is considered a no-no. Virtually all public baths in Japan require bathers to be undressed by code and for the practical purpose of cleaning oneself. The exception is mixed gender public "baths" in urban areas, where the rule is that you *must* have a bathing suit on. --MangoCurry 05:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've modified this section, which I think suffers from an assumption that public, social nudity in Japan is somehow due to Western influence. It's the other way around. It is the Japanese elites' understanding of what it meant to be a "modern", "Western" nation that led increasingly to public modesty, and the presence of any "nudist camp" would be evidence that public, social nudity has become specialized and private. Thus you find mixed public baths in the conservative countryside and not the highly Westernized urban areas. More generally I think lumping Japan and Hong Kong is problematic. A-giau 14:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed statements that contradict facts about Japan, mainly the facts that A) communal showers don't exist in most Japanese public schools, B) schools don't permit children to swim naked, C) there are no nudist camps, let alone nude or topless beaches in Japan.--MangoCurry 05:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to stop this crazy editing

Every week I come to this article not because im intrested in Nudity but because I love how people keep changeing nudity every week, we should make this a uniform article if this does not stop I will make a motion to lock this topic --Kylehamilton 09:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it is sooooooo stupid, now they've added a low-quality picture of two fighting nude women...?!?!? who on earth needs this?

Nudity in art or just nudity? What is going on here?

Is this an article about nudity in art? Life drawing? The figure in sculpture? Can't there be a separate article just on that? I would think so. I think a lot of these images just are weak. I want to dig into this article but it seems so messed up.... sigh. All the other nudity topics are just kind of dumped in the see also section when the could be better discussed on this page. Dandelion1 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge/move suggestion

I would like to propose to move common sections of naturism and nudism as well as related issues to a new page called Clothes free movement. Dandelion1 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

photograph or drawing?

Is Image:Erleuchtung.jpg really a photograph? It looks like a drawing to me. --Allen 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a photo to me. =) Powers 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Daniel 123

I'm 11 years old and landed on this page as "random article". and my eyes are burned out of their sockets. Why do you make it sound like the site's called XXXpOrNeNcYcLoPedia? If i were much younger than i am now i propable couldn't even type 30 words per minute or be going to an on-line encyclopedia. "human knowledge" means things that we, as a species, know. it does not mean "things that humans know about fully-clothed people. I think we've all seen atleast ourselves naked and can handle the material in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel 123 (talk • contribs) .

I'm very confused. I can't figure out whether you're against nudity in Wikipedia or for it. In any case, Wikipedia is not censored for minors, or for any other reason. If you are offended by images of the human body, I pity you, since you have to live inside one like all the rest of us. In any case, a good way to avoid having your eyes "burned out" further would be to avoid Wikipedia and other adult encyclopedias from now on. Best wishes, Kasreyn 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/d/Talk%7ENudity_Archive_1_9dc2.html"

Category: Talk archives