Valid XHTML 1.0!


(last update 31. Dec 2000, an interesting link)

Important: first you are invited to vote, before I may influence you with my thoughts: go there to vote!

The Reason for Creating this Page

The Internet age brought not only new ways of textual and graphical information interchange as well as software and special file downloads in widespread manner, but also offering and downloading of a certain type of file: JPEG pictures, mostly scanned from magazines and other printed publications, often of more or less nude celebrities. As well in a lower extent (bandwidth and storage space caused) also clips in formats like MPEG, AVI, Quicktime or RealVideo are exchanged in similar manner. Therefore here I deal with this unprecedented flood of these and the posture of celebrities, which leads to attitude dependent different results... These Internet sites can be differentiated into four main categories: serious ones, only presenting real pictures and no --- or nearly never, due to too believable and perfect ones --- fakes, then such with seldom, but not as good suppressed fakes and then the pure fake sites, which clearly state, that all "pictures" are only manipulated images, and the worst: sites mixing up real and fake pictures in a hardly comprehensive manner, while labelling against often better knowledge all of these as real pictures. Finally I want to provide you with two interesting links for practical purposes: the best celebrity picture site is the half free, half pay site of the D-Man, virtually fake and porn free, also presenting non-nudes, while nude images are the vast majority, but mostly esthetically taken. And the Fake Detective clears up rumors about so-called real nudes of celebrities, which are none, very well at least in the more widespread cases.

Acting and Nudity

Today probably the majority of not child aided movies presents more or less nudity. And one thing is for sure: while some women don't have any problem at all with showing herselves nude, others don't like or even hate it. Especially for young actresses there can build up rapidly an annoying dilemma... My view is, that there should be made a clear distinction between movies of sexual contents (example: "Basic Instinct") and all others with absolutely no nudity; because love and sex come clearly not always in unison (don't misunderstand: I recommend this unison clearly!). Otherwise there would be neither prostitution nor platonic love in the world; both are more frequent, as it's often believed or admitted, despite these are generally more exceptions then the rule. And this would leave only a small number of movies with real nudity requirement; for these easily the actresses with no nudity concern could be "recruited". This would be far more honest and straightforward, then todays widespread practice of forcing especially not yet established, but also better known actresses into nudity and simulated sex, which they don't like and are only sacrificed for the commercial success: the aim, to allure especially the male public to cinemas and TV channels by presenting celebrities and "fresh flesh" in the raw. To make it quite clear: to force actresses in such scenes against their real feelings can be easily and without exaggeration considered as special form of prostitution. And the claim of "artistic reasons" is far too often only a coverage of low motivation and is therefore bullshit --- see above!

The Rats: Paparazzi

In my view celebrities, who want not to be seen nude by the public, have to be cautious for a simple reason. Being reckless is virtually a guarantee to be "shot" by these little rats, which are called "Paparazzi". You may think, that this is an offense without appropriate judgement? I don't think so, despite clearly large parts of the public are generating a demand of such pictures, which is fulfilled by these unscrupulous photographs. But the same can be said about drug dealers for example --- are they not guilty, because they satisfy in some way an obvious need of the society (even despite this is a minor part of the society)? And violation of laws is also widespread among these "Paparazzi" and their collaborators, the tabloids. Therefore these photographs can be considered in their majority easily and correctly as criminals --- not to speak of ethical considerations. And despite there are cases of invitations like the not actually "accidents" of Elizabeth Hurley, generally it is an abusive practice.

Nude Posing

To make the next point: I want to leave it totally to the women, how they decide to pose this way or not. The only thing, which I want to see, is that they stick to their decision, especially because nude pictures can't be erased after creating them. And what I really despise, is shameless calculation, which comes most often in one of two ways: unknowns try to become celebrities by Playboy shootings for example, and when successful, they want the public to believe that this was only a minor failure and nothing else (and then turn down any such offers unhonestly), because of youth or similar; and otherwise (once) established celebrities, which are off from their career heights, who want to spoil again their celebrity recognition, also for pure career reasons, while they didn't posed so ever before. Therefore I welcome backbone like Diana Rigg or Jaclyn Smith showed, which never showed off nude, or Pamela Anderson, who did it, before she became famous, and ever since them on a regular base, regardless, how her career was shaped anyway. The same holds true for example for the less known Alison Armitage (who started as Playboy model Brittany York, but continues to pose nude occasionally).

The superfluous Ones: runway/catwalk models

One of the greatest misperceptions today is a "celebrity status" of some people, who do or did nothing remarkable at all. One of the worst are these so-called "supermodels". Reality is: they are wadding in ridiculous, off-reality clothing as movable dolls for madness of more or less insane designers. A business, which can't be surpassed by superstition, boredom, being superfluous and so on. The results are not sound, but meagerness ill models, who sleep all day, to be fit for some hours of wadding, often alcohol dependent or even taking drugs; also some sort of scene prostitution is widespread. When this came out a few months ago, only believers in this huge lie of glamour could be surprised anyway. These often arrogant models, which are mostly not equipped with good proportions at all (too long legs are a typical deviation from sound shape, as well as too low fat content, which makes up always especially the female body and is needed in sufficient extent for getting children!) and presenting never remarkable faces (do you remember the Altman movie about modeling? Actress Kim Basinger outshined all of these ridiuculous "catwalkers" clearly! Compared with these models, even Pamela Anderson, who claims not to be a great one in acting, is a fine actress...). Nothing to wonder about, that they get hardly a man for marriage, despite often claimed as most-beautiful (mostly really most-sterotypical indeed), because of the lack of true abilities and personality. And therefore these ridiculous trials, to become an actress, are always doomed to fail, save for some cases, when a (ex-)model early enough develops better abilities and gets rid of this nasty business, which was also sometimes not very exaggerated regarded as modern kind of prostitution (watch the extremely revealing presentatinons at least once objective!). The resume: no one, without any exception, of these "supermodels" deserves public attention at all, and the media hype around them has only one negative consequence: to make bad idols for girls and young women! (often causing sickness by the hunger habits of these)

Putting all together

My view summed up is as follows: igore catwalk/runway models completely, they are less worth as the lowest worker, which is at least performing a needed job; despise shameless movie makers and (again or first) want-to-be celebrities posing in the raw by cold calculation only and give every woman with backbone the tolerance, to let her handle nudity and simulated sex (in case of actresses) consistently either positive or negative. I think, that posing for Playboy or Perfect Ten is often more esthetically, then some superfluous scenes of simulated sex or nudity in movies, only created for commercial viewing pleasure. And the posture, to show nude in movies, but never pose for esthetically pictures, I don't consider as convincing: it's simply not honest. Artistic freedom is only a word, most often abused for this "attitude"!

Link Section

A little high this designation is for just one link so far, but anyway:

Body in Mind --- philosophy of female beauty

is a nice and interesting, big venture to explore many ways of things like beauty, nudity, sexuality especially regarding women. Despite he warns you too on that entry page, I want to state, that there is some nudity and mature language involved consequently.


back to top  nudity posture overview  celebs section  celebrity links  back to main

remarks, comments, suggestions etc. to: