I think, and this is personal opinion only, my main problem with nudity is not the nudes, but there seems no reason for the nudity except laziness on the part of the people creating the graphic. The human body, if drawn or painted, is complex and a great source of inspiration, and many artists study for years before setting a nude before the public. Plopping a naked Vicky onto a scene takes no artistry or creativity, and shows no complexity of thought. Perhaps because I am a little bit of a writer, and not an artist at all, I'd like to see some story told, some reason for a naked person to be wandering around in what is usually a hostile or very cold environment. But time after time the only conclusion I can draw is that the person creating the graphic simply didn't have the talent to postwork clothes or the funds to buy any appropriate garb. But I know I'm alone in thinking there is more mystery and more allure in a carefully composed clothed figure than most of these "let it all hang out" renderings. I'm baffled by the fascination for plastic looking body parts. Oh well. That's a personal bias. I've been called a prude enough time on these forums to know what is coming next, but truly I have given up on the galleries, not because of TOS, but because so often there is a deficit of originality in approach. I am limited by my lack of talent (and so have spared everyone my lack of ability by removing my gallery), but what is the explanation for those who call themselves artists and yet cannot seem to find an original thought? And yet, once in awhile, a true artist does burst out, which tells me that art is not as common as we pretend it is, but is a diamond among the coals. Which is, afterall, what art should be.