Most Americans Don't See Nudity In Art As A Problem

These charts are from a YouGov Poll -- done between March 30th and April 4th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Americans May Not Be As Prudish As Many People Think

Are most Americans prudes, or are ideas toward sex and nudity becoming more liberal. At first glance, the top chart seems to suggest that most Americans remain prudish. But that is the opinion of a majority (53%), and that suggests a majority in this country have more liberal views toward sex and nudity.

And the charts below would seem to back that up. Note that only 26% (or about a quarter of the population thinks nudity should be discouraged, while 66% think it should be encouraged (12%) or should neither be discouraged or encouraged (54%). That's a pretty liberal attitude.

And the next three charts show that liberal attitude extends to sex. The survey asked what respondents thought should be the punishment for nudity or sex in public. A whopping 80% of Americans said a woman exposing her breasts should be given only a ticket (34%) or not be punished at all (46%). About 52% said a man exposing his genitals should be given only a ticket (43%) or not punished (9%). And a 55% majority said those having sex in a public place should only receive a ticket (43%) or not be punished at all (14%). Only very tiny percentages said those things should be punished by probation or prison.

But perhaps the most surprising part of this survey is revealed in the bottom chart. People were asked if they had ever had sex in a public place, and 36% (more than a third) said they had done so. One group (the Baby Boomers) even had more people saying yes than said no. That might be due to the "free love" era of the 1960s and 1970s.

I was pleasantly surprised by this survey. While many Americans remain prudes (frightened by sex and nudity), many more are not. Our society certainly is not as prudish as it once was (just a few decades ago).

All of these charts were made from a recent YouGov Poll -- done between May 5th and 7th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3.9 point margin of error.

America Is Losing It's Prudishness

For much of this country's history, the American public has been very prudish. Nudity was shocking to most, and sex was considered to be something dirty that could not be talked about (especially in a school health class). Most of Europe and much of Asia have been much more open-minded about nudity and sex -- probably because they don't let religion rule their society as much as we do in America.

But that seems to be changing. This YouGov Poll shows that most people in the U.S. think Americans are too easily offended by sex and nudity. This includes Democrats and Independents. Only the Republicans disagree (and think Americans should be prudish when it comes to sex and nudity) -- but that's understandable since that party has most of the nation's right-wing fundamentalists. And it turns out that both genders, all races, and most age groups also think Americans are too prudish -- with only those 65 and older not agreeing (they are split on the question).

I don't know about you, but I think this is a very good thing. It's about time that Americans grew up, and realized that sex (as long as it is consensual) is a natural thing, and so is nudity. I'm not saying we should all go around nude (I doubt many would want me to do that), but it's not the end of the world (or some kind of sin) to see someone nude.

The charts were made from a survey taken on August 2nd and 3rd of a random national sample of 1,000 American adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

Right-Wing Running Scared Of Ashley Judd

The newest attack on Ashley Judd has come from the right-wing Daily Caller, which insinuates that somehow she would not be qualified to be a senator because she has appeared nude or partially-nude in some of her movies. The writer (Taylor Bigler) even stupidly asks, "But will Judd be the first potential senator who has -- literally -- nothing left to show us?"

The answer to that question is, of course, NO. They seem to have conveniently forgotten a right-wing senator from the Republican Party -- Scott Brown. Brown posed completely nude in Playgirl Magazine. He did that in 1982. And when he first ran for his senate seat, the right-wing went to great lengths to make voters understand that his posing nude for a national magazine did not in any way make him unqualified to be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Why then should Judd appearing nude in movies disqualify her for the U.S. Senate? Is this just more of the double-standard the right-wing takes toward their view of men and women? We know that they don't believe women should have pay equal to that of men. We know they don't believe women should have control over their own bodies as men do. We know that many of them don't believe women should be equal in marriage, but should submit to a man's will. We know they don't believe women should have leadership positions in religion -- positions reserved only for men. We know they think its appropriate that women be denied certain veteran's benefits because they didn't serve in a combat unit (even though many died or were wounded while serving in the military).

This is just more evidence that the right-wing has elevated hypocrisy to an art form. It also shows that they are terrified that Ashley Judd could defeat Mitch McConnell, if she decides to run against him in the next election. Nudity did not disqualify Scott Brown from serving as a senator, and it should not disqualify Ashley Judd either. That's just fair.

What's so terrible about nudity anyway? It's not nearly as obscene as starvation, torture, inequality, war, poverty, or racism and bigotry -- none of which the right-wing seems to be very bothered about.

Famous - But Not Very Smart

This story is convincing proof that just because someone is famous (or at least semi-famous) doesn't mean they're very smart. Either that, or they think any kind of publicity is good publicity. CBS is reporting that at least 50 female celebrities have had their cell phones or computers hacked, and the hackers stole nude or compromising pictures of them.

Among those who were victims of the hacking are Scarlett Johansson, Miley Cyrus, Jessica Alba, Vanessa Hudgens, and Christina Aguilera. Making matters even worse, this is the second time this has happened to some of them (Hudgens in 2007 and Cyrus in 2008).

I have to wonder just what the hell these women were thinking. Doesn't even a 9 or 10 year-old know that cell phones and computers are not safe places to store intimate or secret material. Didn't everyone just see what happened to U.S. government secrets, which were posted on WikiLeaks? If the government can be exposed, how much easier is it going to be to get stuff from a person's computer or cell phone?

If you don't want compromising pictures of yourself spread all over the internet, then keep them off your cell phone and/or computer. Isn't that just common sense these days -- even for those who aren't celebrities?

Hotel Gets X-Rating

The Standard Hotel in Manhattan was just finished and opened last year, and has already become something of a landmark in the city.   In fact, the Municipal Arts Society of New York gave the hotel an award as the best new building erected in the city last year.

But the hotel is also starting to get a reputation for something else -- giving X-rated shows to the citizens and visitors of New York City.   That's because a new city park (High Line Park) was just opened on an abandoned elevated railway across the street.   The hotel rooms have floor to ceiling windows and when the curtains are left open, visitors to the park have an unobstructed view into the hotel rooms.

It turns out that many hotel visitors are leaving those curtains open and putting on quite a show for park visitors.   One neighborhood worker says the "shows" are "healthy and fun" -- sort of like the TV show Wild Kingdom.   But City Council Speaker Christine Quinn disagrees.   She calls the situation "unacceptable", and wants something done about it.

In a statement released last Monday, the hotel said its managers will try to "remind guests of the transparency" of the windows.

I suspect the visitors in the park will probably continue to get at least a few of the X-rated shows.   You know at least some of the hotel customers will find the idea of leaving the curtains open kind of exciting, and will do it on purpose.

It gives new meaning to the term "the naked city", doesn't it?   

Individual Vs. Community Rights

This story out of Boulder, Colorado, is pretty interesting. The interesting part is that it concens a clash of rights -- individual rights versus community rights. Is one more important than the other?

It seems that Robert and Catharine Pierce like to do a little gardening. The problem, as far as their neighbors are concerned, is they like to do that gardening while nearly nude. They both wear thong underwear, and Catharine wears pasties. They are in their fifties.

That has the neighbors upset, because as one neighbor says, "There are so many parks around here, and there are lots of kids around. They're on the corner lot right across the street from the community gardens and the Waldorf school. The whole street is lined with kids."

The neighbors have tried calling the police, but the police say there's nothing they can do as long as the Pierces keep their genitals covered (which they are minimally doing). The landlord, Boulder Housing Partners, is now claiming the Pierces are a "nuisance", and is threatening to evict the couple if they continue their nearly nude gardening.

For their part, the Pierces are claiming discrimination. Robert Pierce says, "We want our freedom. We want exactly what the law gives you, and we don't want to be harassed about it."

So, who is right? Should the minimal compliance of the Pierces with the law protect them from eviction? Does the landlord have the right (or obligation) to protect the neighborhood children from witnessing what many of the parents consider "lewd gardening"?

Personally, I could care less how the Pierces dress (or undress) to garden, but then, I don't have to live in that neighborhood. I really don't see why this should have to wind up in a courtroom though. It sounds like a nice tall fence would solve the problem for everyone.

Instead of making enemies of their neighbors, the Pierces should put up a privacy fence. And just to show they respect the rights of their new "gardeners", maybe the neighborhood should take up a collection to help defray the cost of that fence. That's a compromise that could let everyone come out a winner and preserve the goodwill among neighbors.

The only alternative I see is a nasty court fight that creates last ill will among neighbors -- no matter who wins. Sometimes a reasonable compromise is preferable to a court fight -- even where rights are concerned. What do you think?