The reason this topic was chosen is due to a show that aired on national TV. The show was Entertainment Tonight and in October of 1995 it aired an interview with a nude model. It would seem that this was possible because the model was painted. The interview lasted several minutes and had unedited side and frontal views. I believed this was all seen as acceptable because everyone watching the interview perceived the woman as being covered, therefore not nude. Even when the interviewer spoke of the paint and an artist did touch up on one breast that was smudged, no one cared that she was really not wearing anything. On the other hand, in November 1995 the show 60 minutes was blasted by the media all over the nation for showing an unedited film clip of Julie Andrews exposing her breasts for two seconds. What was the difference between the two women exposing their breasts on national television during prime time? I believe it was the perception that one woman was covered in some way. However, would this still be true if flesh colored paint was used or tattoos? What effects our judgment of what is nude or not? Does paint really cover a woman adequately for today's social standards?

Is body paint sufficient covering to allow a person to be in public with no clothing? In today's society we are confused at times as to what is acceptable when it comes to covering ourselves in public. Nudity has become more common on television and in magazines then ever before. So, is there a point where an individual is able to be seen as being properly clothed or concealed, as it would apply to the three main areas of anatomy. The three areas of the human body that are seen as taboos are the breast nipples, pubic region, and buttocks' cleavage. However, there has been a movement in American advertising to slowly desensitize society to these last areas of human anatomy.

In a study by Michael LaTour (1990) were he studied female nudity in advertising, it was seen as not totally acceptable to have explicit nudity associated with many products. Also, as many studies have shown women score lower on arousal and approval of any nudity (Winick, & Evans 1994, LaTour, Pitts,& Snooker-Luther 1990). Furthermore, Alexander and Judd (1986) studied directly the differences in attitudes towards nudity by male and female subjects and found that women are not as effected by nudity as men seem to be. In fact, women are turned off by explicit female nudity.

In a study of nudity were pupil dilation was used to measure arousal, (Hamel 1974) it was found that female subjects are less aroused by nudity then male subjects. Hamel used 2 male and 2 female models in his study of arousal and had them photographed in different stages of undressing. His findings are not unusual for research on nudity. Women find nudity less arousing then men, especially female nudity.

Subjects

Materials

Care was taken to match the same levels of nudity and pose for each comparison group of pictures. The pictures were placed in four groups of three and one of two according to nudity and pose. Furthermore, certain areas of the female anatomy were excluded from the study (pubic region and buttocks' cleavage) due to the conservative nature of the community were the study was conducted.

Procedure

The pictures were put in order of similarity of pose and nudity, one with body paint and two without. The pictures were shown in these groups of three for each subject in every group. The picture of a woman wearing lingerie was used with one group of pictures to see if the subjects would score it differently from group A or B and to be compared to the women who were painted.

The survey asked the subject to rate each picture as to its' level of acceptability to 8 different situations. The scoring was on a scale from 1-10 with 1 being least acceptable. Demographic questions were included in the survey with regard to religion, sex, age, and personal comfort with the experiment, and having seen adult magazines.

I believe a study involving live models could be conducted to test the possibility that paint is simply an optical illusion in 2 dimension. Also, greater control over similarity of nudity and pose could be taken by using the same models for each picture group. The use of male models was not possible in this study due to the nature of the study and the difference in attitudes about the acceptable nudity of males. Also, it is easy to tell if a male is painted.

In conclusion, the finding that people accept body paint as acceptable body covering was surprising. It was not surprising that women rate any nudity of women less acceptable then do men. What does it say of our perception of the human body when a thin coat of pain is adequate covering of the body for TV and magazines ? I was expecting to find that body painting would be seen as an attempt to fool the publics' perception, to my amazement I see that the method works. The Varga girl pictures are not in any adult magazine. They are in a magazine any one, even a minor, can purchase. So, does it make it right that the model is painted?