Social Question

Zen_Again's avatar

Do you consider this nudity?

Asked by Zen_Again (9901points) May 1st, 2010

My kids don’t think much of her, and before American Idol I’d never heard of her, but nude?
It’s Kara Dioguardi

They always tease us with “Celebrity Nude” and “Bares All” – but frankly, it’s a nice photo and all, but I don’t consider this nude. We don’t see anything.

Right?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

gailcalled's avatar

She’s (or They’re all) lovely. How many naked women do you need to see to get the point? Seen one, seen them all, I say, re: private parts.

Zen_Again's avatar

Yes, they are nice. In fact, I think it would be nice for most women to have professional photos taken of them – if they can afford it – just to keep. I’m a bit of an archivist, anyway.

But it isn’t really nudity, right?

Evan's avatar

I think I kind of agree with your point, but technically speaking it kind of IS a nude shot.. simply in that it’s clear she’s not wearing any clothing..

On the other hand, in terms of how the term nudity often gets used to refer to shots in which you can see peoples’ so-called “private” areas, then ya: it’s not “nudity” per se.

ucme's avatar

Well she’s clearly naked, but can’t be considered nude as we can’t see any “details” Although the tantalising shot of the ever alluring side boob can certainly lead to a semi, for me anyway.

rebbel's avatar

Well, i’ld say she hasn’t got any clothes on.
So, the photo was taken while she was nekkid.
I personally don’t need to see boobage or pubes to call this pic a nude pic.

Evan's avatar

The other factor to consider is that ultimately the fact that so many people probably DO agree with you (that it’s not necessarily “nudity”) is going to be a reflection of where are cultural values are. I mean.. even just 50 years ago a shot like that would only appear in Playboy. And EVERYone you talked to would probably consider it nudity in the extreme..

xxii's avatar

Well, I suppose the question is: is she nude in the picture or not? The answer is yes, so yeah, I’d consider this nudity.

lillycoyote's avatar

Yes, of course. She doesn’t appear to have any clothing on so, that’s pretty much, exactly, what the definition of nudity is: She might be wearing socks, you can’t see in the picture and if she were, she would be almost entirely naked. :)

wonderingwhy's avatar

I definitely get your point. Technically she is nude in that she’s without clothing (though I suppose you could argue that she is partially covered), she’s just not “exposed”. Saying she “bares all” is borderline misleading in my opinion, because while technically she does, she doesn’t for the reader.

ZEPHYRA's avatar

Well, I cannot say that she is a woman covered in a Burka!!!!!

LunaChick's avatar

Nude: n.
1. An unclothed human figure, especially an artistic representation.
2. The condition of being unclothed.

Yep, that’s nudity.

casamystic's avatar

Yup. Nude. Pretty. pretty tasteful photo. But I go with the same definition that a nude picture is one where the subject does not have any clothes. And this fits. If I were sketching a nude model, I would expect no clothes on the model but not necessarily a view of any more personal private parts of anatomy.

syz's avatar

No clothes = nude, to me.

DrBill's avatar

@gailcalled

Male point of view = Once you’ve seen a naked woman, you want to see the rest of them.

She is nude, a very tasteful artistic nude.

thriftymaid's avatar

She has no clothes on, so yes, it is a nude.

txtelevision's avatar

This is called an implied nude. My husband is a photographer and takes many of these pictures (and many of me). He says that it is sexier than a full nude.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther