It does seem that violence is more widely accepted than nudity, let alone sexual nudity. I remember a case Jim posted about once how a woman bought ger grandson one of the Grand Theft Auto games, an 18 rated game for her then 15 year old grandson, perhaps one of the few most violent games available, and she complained when she found out there was sexual content too.

The problem seems to be more of people worrying that they will get in trouble for allowing it beause a lot of people don't actually care.

I still don't understand how much fuss was kicked off over the superbowl thing with Janet Jackson. Everyone in the world has nipples, so I'm not sure who found it so offensive. Apparently in New York women can now go topless, as men could anyway, so the laws are being more balanced, but it is quite ridiculous really.

I totaly agree with everything you said there neil. violence is accepted far too easily than what sex it . yet i find violence far more disturbing than sex .

Not that I'm aware of....

I'm not even referring to sex though, just nudity...though it is odd how, in this country, people can legally have sex at 16, but sex films and such are still rated 18.

Nudity though isn't necessarily sexual, it depends on the situation and the intent of the person, though that could be hard to distinguish. For instance someone exposing themselves in the street, flashing, that is exhibitionism done for sexual thrills, but someone like Steve Gough (http://nakedwalk.org/) who walked from Land's End to John o' Groats nude is just a more natural thing to do more with comfort and such (although part of why he personally does it is to try to change laws on the subject - and has been arrested several times for it).

One thing that I find quite odd too is how a lot of people use the excuse that if someone is nude than a child might see them or such, as if that would mentally scar them. However it tends to be children who are not fazed by nudity and it is only when they are told that it is so 'bad' that they then begin to feel differently about it and that can cause body shame issues, which are more likely to cause problems.

Topfree equality or topfreedom is a social movement in North America, where resistance is much greater than in Europe or Australia. The goal of the movement is to give females the right to remove their clothing above the waist in public wherever males can legally do so (e.g., at a beach, swimming pool, or park). The reasons cited include keeping nursing mothers from having to find a hidden place for breastfeeding, sun tanning, comfort in places such as pools and beaches, and legal equality.

The movement does not try to secure a right for women or men to be without a shirt in a restaurant or where such is not accepted for either gender, but with ensuring equality under law for women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfree..._North_America

Exactly!! where as seeing violence can scar a child . so why is it that people seem to accept it more?? where as nudity is more or less harmless but is frowned apon .

At least in general we are more relaxed here than in the US. It is somewhat a product of the prudish victorian era. We've come a long way from people wearing swimming costumes which covered their whole body, but still there is an odd balance. Everyone is fundamentally the same, despite the basic difference between genders and then differences in size, shape and colour, there is no real need to hide or be ashamed of ourselves.

please keep your clothes on, neil.

hehe....you always make me chuckle!

Why would you consider that picture depicts violence?

It's got blood, but I don't see any violence... violence against one self perhaps, but not commonly understood violence...


But yes, violence is much more acceptable than nudity...

I too think this belongs in NBJ!