Thread: What the heck is nude anyway- are we "Victorian" again?

Everyday, Yahoo brings me informative, informed and important news, reported with integrity. Today it is talking about a Britney Spears act on Britains Got Talent, who has caused the show to be investigated by Ofcom due to her topless act.
Daily TV round-up

So of course, I went straight to Youtube to see some boobies, only to find that the girl was not topless at all! She has a thong on with gems stuck to her to imitate that body stocking Britney had on that time, with glitter on her side boobs and over her nipples. I was expecting full nipples! So why is she being called "topless" and investigated?



This put me in mind of something I read about ballet in the 1800s, being called the "public exposure of a naked female", and if...

"what constitues nakedness must be understood in cultural context. Hutin (a dancer) wore loose trousers gathered at the ankle and covered by a long silk skirt. She was hardly naked (not an inch of flesh beneath her waist showed), nor was her costume even translucent. A woman in the audience on the evening of Hutin's Ameri- can debut wrote to a friend that the dancer's display was "no worse than others on the stage," adding that she "dances beautifully." What so disturbed Morse was the fact that every time Hutin pirouetted, her skirt flew up and the trousers beneath gave shape to the lower part of the female body." R.C Allen

Obviously this lass showed a lot more that the dancer described above, but still- what is nude? Can we be nude without showing nipples and genitals (which the Policing and Crime Act says is naked), like Yahoo is saying today? When I read through some of the comments on the article, hardly anyone mentioned that her boobs were largely covered.

Are we really getting more prudish?
Was this girl really naked or not?
Why is she being singled out when people show pasties on BGT all the time?
What is naked anyway? What is nude?
Why are people so worked up and shocked over this?
Are we coming full circle, back to the attitudes of ye olde times?

WARNING

Warning: This is an Old Thread This discussion is older than 60 days. information contained in it may no longer be current

....and what of the concept of 'nude' as an artifice - i.e. in cosmetics that promote the sales of the 'natural look'? What of nude stockings and tights with flesh coloured thongs?

In wearing the above would we be 'nude but not naked'?

If we were to wear red lipstick, red blush, red stockings and a red thong, would we be 'red but not naked'?

I'm wondering if, the girl in the Britney act wore a full 'nude' opaque body stocking instead, would they have censored her whole body? Any part of it?

Interesting thread, Glorian

I'm wondering if, the girl in the Britney act wore a full 'nude' opaque body stocking instead, would they have censored her whole body? Any part of it?

I wondered this as well, especially because I initially thought there was a body stocking in place, and other people had were uncertain too. Begs the question of what people are reacting to!

The word nude is used a lot when discussing this, but it once was that nude was more acceptable than naked, the difference often being how "artistic" it was, moving or not moving, and the class of the audience watching. Wonder how and if this could apply here?

Someone suggested to me that it was not the near-nudity but the stripper style moves that got people reacting.

But they covered her boobs with little Union Jacks! You couldn't even see any boobs on the telly. How ridiculous.

I know! There was a tiny peek at the beginning but that was it. Interestingly, Mark (other half for those who don't know) said that he WOULD consider that both topless and naked! Cue me shouting in the street "IF I WAS WEARING A THONG YOU WOULD CALL ME NAKED??" and getting funny looks lol.

Well the poor dear can't hold much of a tune and Amanda What's-her-face appears to be taking style cues from Maggie Thatcher, so maybe she's taking lessons on prudishness from the Iron Lady too?

If she had worn pasties or a skin suit as Kittie suggested (and also possibly not ravaged the judges so) there would have been little to no comment; I think perhaps it's partly sexism/double standards in that they can show penises on telly and stage much more easily that ladies' nip-nips. Also, why can men show their nips in public and women cannot? They're still nipples. And any arguments about "but the boobies..." well, tbh, loads of men have much bigger moobs than a lot of women do. I would much rather see some boobies, thank you very much.

I had a lecture at uni once where we had to discuss the difference between nudity and nakedness. Nudity of the human form is a work of art, it is classy or has some sort of message. Nakeyness is vulgar and pornographic. Isn't it something like, if a topless or nude woman remains still on stage then she is nude, as soon as she moves, she is naked. (Probably watched Mrs. Henderson Presents one too many times. lol.)

Maybe there is about to be a move towards more old fashioned ideas on dress, perhaps as a reaction to how little clothing many people wear in music videos, advertisements and just generally on the street? Maybe it's a good thing, maybe not? Dunno really.

Originally Posted by Lettie Figgins

If she had worn pasties or a skin suit as Kittie suggested (and also possibly not ravaged the judges so) there would have been little to no comment; I think perhaps it's partly sexism/double standards in that they can show penises on telly and stage much more easily that ladies' nip-nips.

Maybe there is about to be a move towards more old fashioned ideas on dress, perhaps as a reaction to how little clothing many people wear in music videos, advertisements and just generally on the street? Maybe it's a good thing, maybe not? Dunno really.

I have to say I find her lack of talent more offensive! That said, BGT is a "family" show. In the same way I wouldn't want my six year old to watch a sex scene in a film or take her to a burlesque show (not yet, anyway!) I don't really want to see this level of sexualisation (if that's a word) on prime time Saturday night TV.

I felt the same way when Michele L'Amour played America's Got Talent. She is a fabulous performer, but she is an ADULT performer. If you wouldn't book it for a kids party, it shouldn't be on tv when kids are going to be watching.

We're not anti-nude or anti-naked in this house and I am trying to raise my daughter with a healthy view of sex and her own body - but she doesn't need to see a girl in a thong prancing about (with not much grace or glamour I might add!) with or without her nipples showing.

If she had worn pasties or a skin suit as Kittie suggested (and also possibly not ravaged the judges so) there would have been little to no comment;

Ah, if you look closely at the beginning, she WAS wearing little glittery pasties over her nipples! That is what got me talking about this, if she was showing nipples then she would have been topless/naked and I suppose I would have understood the reaction a bit better (not agreed with but understood). But her nipples are covered, as are her side-boobs :-). And they still union-flagged her!

In other interesting information, someone informed me it is only a union jack when on a pole at sea, apparently. lol.

I have to say I find her lack of talent more offensive!

A lot of people said this to me on facebook, often as "its not the nakedness its the lack of talent". Do you think so many people would have commented on the lack of talent if she had not been scantily clad and without talent? So many people on this program are rubbish, I was surprised that people commented on it.

That said, BGT is a "family" show. In the same way I wouldn't want my six year old to watch a sex scene in a film or take her to a burlesque show (not yet, anyway!) I don't really want to see this level of sexualisation (if that's a word) on prime time Saturday night TV.

One thing that has occurred to me recently is how cultural/British this fear of exposing children to sexuality is (and pretty Victorian too, they were panic stricken about it, all sorts of horror stories about children working in brothels and corrupted by things). I recently performed in Italy, and was mortified to see children in the audience, some as young as 5! Honestly, I was horrified! I asked someone who regularly goes to shows in Italy if it was normal and they said yes, it happens often. Afterwards, the little girl, about 6, who was the daughter of one the organisers, seemed so happy though, shyly playing with the performers and running round. It made me think. Later that weekend I was on a float themed Bollywood/Karma Sutra with images from the KS on it, and they had us throwing condoms out into the crowd, filled with families! Occasionally a child would go for the condom and the parent would pick it up and take it away (much to the annoyance of the kid). In the UK, I imagine there would have been all sorts of anger about this, maybe a Daily Mail/Yahoo news article "Burlesque dancers give condoms to small children". But everyone there just laughed! It has given me food for thought about different attitudes to this kind of thing.

I guess, you're right about the pre-watershed thing blushbaby. I don't watch BGT, so assumed that it was on later.

However, the amount of adverts and music videos that are already on when kids can see them and emulate the dance moves of their favourite popstars (and the lyrics) kind of makes it a moot point. These things are available to kids all the time, they shouldn't be, but somehow scantily clad dancers doing provocative moves is acceptable at all hours on the music channels and nudity is perfectly fine to sell perfume pre-watershed, so it's all very confusing mixed signals from the media industry.

Thou shalt not shake your titties on BGT, but to sell the latest single from Xtina or Ke$ha or whoever, it's kind of hypocritical. If they say, this is OK, but this is not, when they're pretty much the same thing it becomes rather hard to understand what the fuss over one thing is about when there's not as much fuss over t'other.