I think what Kendra is railing against isn;t so much the nudity in general, but images like, say, a recent one fo two days ago, where a woman is perched in a squat right over a spiked dildo. Images like that are clearly softcore porn. Before any fool in here points a finger and shouts "prude!", let it be known that erotica is cool with me... Hell, I love it, and have quite the collection. In short, I got nothing at all against it. OTOH, I also respect the rights of others in not having to see something of that nature. I also would never show any of my children any of the aforementioned collection. This isn't Aldous Huxley's world (though it gets closer each day, don't it?), and I myself would prefer that my children become mature adults before being bombarded with erotic imagery... they would get too much of it in advertisements and on so-called "televised entertainment" as it is. The Death of Sardanapal isn't gratuitous sex (or even gratuitous violence. It was commissioned to prove a point and to show a historical event if memory serves.) I mean, let's face facts: If it were a Poser render, Sardanapal would most likely have her legs spread wide, she's carry a come-hither (and slightly cross-eyed) look on her face even at the moment of death, a fountain of blood would be gushing out of her wide-open chest, and her killer would have a raging hard-on and would wear leather chaps with his heavily-postworked ass-crack showing through. That, and the rest of the Harem would prolly be engaged in a lesbian free-for-all orgy, but with just enough daylight seperating their genitalia to avoid an outright TOS violation. As for the historical painting itself? My kids would not only see it, but I'd fill 'em in on the history as soon as I could get the proper information. But remember - Sardanapal is a complete galaxy's worth of difference from the recently-posted render of a tattooed chick squatting over a dildo and looks just about to ram it home.