Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Is This Woman Nude?


Of course she is.

Sports Illustrated used bodypaint on model Julie Henderson, and three others, in a clever ploy to present nudity in their magazine, without technical nudity.

But of course, Julie is nude, just the same as if she were covered in tattoos. And if the exposure of the nipple is the actual definition of toplessness, then she is clearly topless in this photo.

Bodypainting is a traditional activity at nudist and naturist events. I don't think that anyone participating considers him or herself to be any less nude simply because there is a little bit of paint here and there on the body.

I have mixed feelings about what SI has done with these models. On one hand I applaud their efforts to push the envelope on acceptable nudity, and on the other hand I know it's just clever merchandising, exploiting women and their bodies simply for the pleasure of males, which in this instance has to be primarily adolescent boys looking for their own stimulus package.

Whatever the motive, the photos are pretty spectacular.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 comments:

Rick said...

Interesting. SI is, as usual, pushing the envelope. I agree that, technically, she is nude but it's generally been my observation that as long as the nipple and areolae are covered by anything -- pasties, bamdaids, nearly transparent fabric, a wet T-shirt, or body paint -- breasts are more or less acceptable. It doesn't seem logical but there it is.

Anonymous said...

I read Si. I see Nothing sexual about the swwimming suit issue. I was fooled by the body paint, I thought It was a swimsuit!

Anonymous said...

I read SI. I do NOT consider the Swimming suit issue sexual at all. They are trying to sell issues and swimsuits. The body painting is art! And I was fooled I thought it was a swimsuit!