I don't care about nudity (or nudity flags for that matter).  The main concern here is clarity - as Cobalt_dream mentions and how this thread started.  It seems that not only is nudity a concern, but so is suggestive nudity.  This is where the swamp waters roll in and flood paradise.

Nudity is defined as (pulling up Merriam-Webster here, using the most appropriate definition):

3 a : devoid of clothing : UNCLOTHED  b : UNDRAPED   used of an artistic representation of a human figure especially in sculpture and painting

Now, we can all understand and appreciate that 'see-through' clothing is just as 'revealing' as nudity so that can't be used as a case for non-nudity.  The problem then moves onto suggestive nudity - wherein the 'offending' body parts are clothed/draped but that they are suggested through the clothes (contours, for instance).

We must remember that these images are 3D renderings of 3D representations on a computer.  'Suggestive nudity' is of only two basic types: morphed/molded into the clothing for realistic impression by the artist or added by the content creator for similar impression.  This means that the suggestive nudity actually resides in the clothes (!).  Can clothes be nude?

With the advent of dynamic cloth simulation, there is obviously a third type which is more indicative of reality: clothing that receives its suggestion from the underlying form.  But that still, pardon the pun, skirts the issue.  Is it considered nudity if a photographer takes a photo of a woman in a dress of fine material and the wind happens to cause features to impress on that dress which are suggestive?  I don't think that would get very far in a court of law.

These are murky waters - I suggest the cardboard box/large armor clad clothing approach. :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone